Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00224/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00224-1/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 

Michael Eugene Traverso, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, 

Respondent. 

No. CV-13-00224-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

AND 

DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY AND IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS 

 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle, (Doc. 48), regarding Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that 

the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice. The 

Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the 

R&R. (Doc. 48 at 8 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72).) 

Petitioner filed Objections on June 25, 2015, (Doc. 49), Respondent filed a Response on 

July 8, 2015, (Doc. 50), and Petitioner filed his Reply on July 10, 2015, (Doc. 51). 

I. Background 

On February 1, 2013, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) On August 5, 2013, Respondent filed a Limited 

Answer to Petitioner’s Petition, arguing that Petitioner’s claims are time-barred, not 

cognizable, and/or procedurally defaulted. (Doc. 10.) Petitioner filed a Reply in Support 

Case 2:13-cv-00224-DLR Document 52 Filed 07/31/15 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

of his Petition on November 15, 2013. (Doc. 17.) 

 On April 14, 2014, Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson issued a Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court deny the Petition as untimely. 

(Doc. 18.) On April 14, 2014, Petitioner filed Objections to Judge Anderson’s R&R and 

raised, for the first time, an equitable tolling argument. (Doc. 20.) On June 12, 2014, 

Respondent filed a Response to Petitioner’s Objections, arguing that equitable tolling did 

not apply to the facts of this case. (Doc. 29.) Petitioner filed a Reply in Support of his 

Objections on July 3, 2014. (Doc. 36.) Petitioner asserted that he was entitled to an 

evidentiary hearing on equitable tolling. (Id.) 

On September 30, 2014, this Court adopted Magistrate Judge Anderson’s 

determination that, when factoring in the period of time that the statute of limitations was 

tolled during Petitioner’s PCR proceeding, the applicable one-year limitations period 

expired nearly three months before the Petition was filed. (Doc. 37.) However, this 

Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf for further proceedings to 

determine if equitable tolling applied to the facts of the case such that the Petition was 

timely filed and, if so, for an R&R on the merits. (Id.) On October 16, 2014, this matter 

was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Boyle. (Doc. 41.) On December 4, 2014, the parties 

filed a Stipulation Re: Request for Evidentiary Hearing wherein the parties stipulated that 

an evidentiary hearing was not necessary and that the facts necessary to determine the 

issues raised could be determined from the affidavits and pleadings. (Doc. 45.) 

 On June 16, 2015, after considering Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s 

Request for Evidentiary Hearing, (Doc. 42), and Petitioner’s Response to Respondent’s 

Briefing Re: Equitable Tolling, (Doc. 47), Magistrate Judge Boyle entered his R&R, 

(Doc. 48), wherein he found that Petitioner’s attorney’s reliance on a third party’s 

calculation of a deadline is not an extraordinary circumstance justifying equitable tolling. 

The R&R recommended that the Petition be denied as untimely. 

II. Ruling 

 The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the R&R’s 

Case 2:13-cv-00224-DLR Document 52 Filed 07/31/15 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

27 

28 

recommendations de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that 

the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which 

specific objections are made). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s 

determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the meaning of Rule 72(b), 

Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner’s objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating 

that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate”). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the R&R of Magistrate Judge Boyle, (Doc. 

48), is ACCEPTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, having considered the issuance of a 

Certificate of Appealability from the order denying Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of 

Habeas Corpus, a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on 

appeal are DENIED because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural 

bar. 

 Dated this 30th day of July, 2015. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge

Case 2:13-cv-00224-DLR Document 52 Filed 07/31/15 Page 3 of 3