Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08225/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08225-0/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 filed her original, and unsigned, § 2254 petition on

November 9, 2012, and she filed her amended § 2254 petition pursuant to court

order on March 7, 2013 (which she signed on March 4, 2013.) While the Magistrate

Judge and the respondents differ by some two months as to when the one-year

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Judith M. Smith,

 Petitioner,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-08225-PCT-PGR (MEA)

 ORDER

 

 

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Aspey notwithstanding that no one has filed any objections to the Report and

Recommendation, the Court finds that the petitioner’s amended habeas corpus

petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be dismissed with prejudice as

time-barred because this action was filed long after the expiration of the AEDPA’s

one-year statute of limitations and the petitioner has made no showing that the

limitations period should be equitably tolled, and the petitioner has not asserted that

she is actually innocent.1

 Therefore,

Case 3:12-cv-08225-PGR Document 14 Filed 11/18/13 Page 1 of 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

limitations period expired, the Court need not make that specific determination

because it is clear that under any proper calculation the petitioner filed this action

over five years after the expiration of the limitations period.

- 2 -

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

(Doc.13) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s [Amended] Petition Under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 4)

is denied and that this action is dismissed with prejudice as time-barred.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue and

that the petitioner is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis because the dismissal

of the petitioner’s habeas petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of

reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 18th day of November, 2013.

Case 3:12-cv-08225-PGR Document 14 Filed 11/18/13 Page 2 of 2