Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01339/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01339-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 1

 The petitioner declares in his § 2254 petition that the petition was

placed in the prison mailing system on April 18, 2009.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jerome Franklin, Jr.,

Petitioner,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1339-PHX-PGR (MHB)

 

 ORDER

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Burns (doc. #12) in light of Petitioner’s Reply and Objection to the

Magistrate[‘]s Report and Recommendation (doc. #13), the Court finds that the

Magistrate Judge correctly concluded the petitioner’s habeas petition, filed with

the Court on June 22, 20091

 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, must be dismissed

with prejudice because it was filed years after the expiration of the one-year

limitations period mandated by the AEDPA. 

Because the petitioner’s conviction became final in 1994, which was prior

to the enactment of the AEDPA on April 24, 1996, the petitioner had until April 24,

Case 2:09-cv-01339-PGR Document 14 Filed 12/15/09 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

 The Court disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s statement in the

Report and Recommendation that the AEDPA’s limitations period expired on

January 25, 1995. That disagreement, however, does not change the

correctness of the Magistrate Judge’s determination that the petition is timebarred.

3

 There can be no statutory tolling of the AEDPA’s limitations period

because the one petition for post-conviction relief that the petitioner filed in state

court on October 15, 2007 was untimely under Arizona law and was filed after the

expiration of the AEDPA’s limitations period.

- 2 -

1997 in which to file his § 2254 petition, absent tolling.2

 The Court rejects the

petitioner’s argument in his objections to the Report and Recommendation that

the AEDPA’s one-year limitations period should be equitably tolled inasmuch as

the petitioner has failed to establish that he pursued his rights diligently and that

some extraordinary circumstance beyond his control prevented him from timely

filing his § 2254 petition.3

 While the petitioner asserts in effect that he was

prevented from timely filing his petition due to the Arizona Department of

Correction’s failure to provide basic legal resource materials for the pursuit of

post-conviction relief, including AEDPA-related materials, he has not sufficiently

established that he properly pursued his post-conviction relief remedies during

the relevant time period. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

(doc. #12) is accepted and adopted by the Court to the extent set forth herein.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied as

time-barred and that this action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the

Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability shall not

Case 2:09-cv-01339-PGR Document 14 Filed 12/15/09 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

- 3 -

issue.

DATED this 14th day of December, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01339-PGR Document 14 Filed 12/15/09 Page 3 of 3