Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-02431/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-02431-1/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Joseph Byrne,

Petitioner,

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-18-02431-PHX-JJT (ESW)

ORDER 

At issue is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)(Doc. 27) submitted by United 

States Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett, recommending that the Court dismiss with 

prejudice the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) 

and deny Petitioner’s request to dismiss the Petition without prejudice (Doc. 26). Petitioner 

timely filed an Objection thereto (Doc. 28) and Respondents filed a Response to that 

Objection (Doc. 29). 

Upon de novo review, the Court adopts Judge Willett’s R&R in its entirety, 

including the underlying reasoning, which is legally and logically correct. Petitioner’s state 

conviction became final for purposes of AEDPA on September 16, 2010, at the latest, when 

the time for him to seek review at the Arizona Supreme Court of his conviction and

sentence, as affirmed by the Arizona Court of Appeals, expired. AEDPA’s one-year 

limitations period therefore began to run the next day and expired on September 16, 2011. 

He did not file the instant Petition until August 2018—almost seven years too late. As

analyzed by Judge Willett, Petitioner presented no basis for either statutory or equitable 

Case 2:18-cv-02431-JJT Document 30 Filed 01/08/20 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

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

27

28

tolling and presented no evidence of actual innocence which would be necessary for 

triggering of the Schlup gateway analysis. See Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995).

Understanding this would be a problem after reading Respondents’ Answer, 

Petitioner sought to save his ability to re-raise the Petition in the future by filing a Motion 

to Concede the Habeas Corpus (Doc. 26), in which he sought dismissal of this Petition 

without prejudice. But as correctly analyzed by Judge Willett in the R&R, there is nothing 

to save. Even were Petitioner to refile a petition in the future on the issues he has raised, it 

would still be untimely without exception and thus subject to the same limitations bar. Thus 

any such subsequent petition raising these issues would necessitate the same work by 

Respondents and the Court to return to exactly the same conclusion—that the petition 

would be untimely without excuse. That would work an inefficiency to the Court, and a 

prejudice on Respondents. Nothing in Petitioner’s Objections addresses this point at all. 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner’s Objections to the R&R (Doc. 28) and 

adopting the R&R in whole (Doc. 27).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing with prejudice the Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and denying Petitioner’s request 

within his Motion to Concede the Habeas Corpus (Doc. 26) to dismiss without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a certificate of Appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Dismissal of the Petition here is justified by the 

plainest of procedural bars.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this matter.

Dated this 8th day of January, 2020.

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cv-02431-JJT Document 30 Filed 01/08/20 Page 2 of 2