Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00279/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00279-0/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 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

James Edmund Kivlehen, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-00279-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is Petitioner James Edmund Kivlehen’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus (Doc. 1), filed February 13, 2014. Magistrate Judge John C. Boyle issued a 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in the matter on May 8, 2015 (Doc. 18), to which 

Petitioner filed an Objection (Doc. 21). For the reasons set forth in the R&R, this Court 

will deny the Petition. 

 In the R&R, Judge Boyle thoroughly and correctly analyzed the issues involved in 

the instant Petition, and because this Court will adopt the recommendations set forth in 

the R&R as well as the reasoning behind those recommendations, it will not restate those 

issues or their resolution here in detail. The Petition presents a very straightforward 

matter of the application of the time limitations imposed on a habeas petition under 28 

U.S.C §2241 et seq. (AEDPA). As Judge Boyle recognized, determination of whether the 

Petition here is timely is a two-step matter. The first step—the application of simple 

arithmetic to the operative dates of Petitioner’s conviction in the underlying matter, the 

finality of that judgment after direct appeal, and the various filings seeking state post 

conviction review in state court and habeas review here—yields the conclusion that the 

Case 2:14-cv-00279-JJT Document 22 Filed 07/31/15 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 

Petition is untimely, even after application of approximately 82 months of statutory 

tolling while Petitioner’s multiple applications for state post-conviction review were 

pending. The second step is to determine whether Petitioner is entitled to equitable 

tolling. For the reasons set forth with clarity on pages 7 and 8 of the R&R, Judge Boyle 

correctly concluded that Petitioner did not meet the requirements entitling him to 

equitable tolling as set forth in Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010). Petitioner 

has not shown that he has been pursuing his rights diligently throughout the at least nine 

years of non-tolled time since any habeas petition would have been due. 

 IT IS ORDERED adopting Magistrate Judge Boyle’s R&R in its entirety and 

incorporating same into this Order. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and dismissing this matter with prejudice. 

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

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal in this matter because the dismissal of the instant 

Petition is justified by a plane procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the 

procedural ruling debatable. 

 Dated this 31st day of July, 2015. 

 

 Honorable John J. Tuchi 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:14-cv-00279-JJT Document 22 Filed 07/31/15 Page 2 of 2