Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01097/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01097-0/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 

Lawrence Benny Owens, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-1097-PHX-NVW (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

AND ORDERS ADDRESSING PENDING 

MOTIONS 

TO THE HONORABLE NEIL V. WAKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 Lawrence Benny Owens filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging his 

convictions and sentences in Maricopa County Superior Court. Petitioner alleges that 

“[t]he Maricopa County Superior Court lacked subject matter, in personam, and render a 

particular judgment jurisdiction [sic]” (Doc. 1) when the case, originally charged in 

Peoria Justice Court, was thereafter prosecuted in the Superior Court of Arizona in and 

for the County of Maricopa. He contends that this violated his due process and equal 

protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

Respondents contend that Petitioner’s claim is time-barred, unexhausted, and without 

merit and should be dismissed with prejudice. As set forth below, the Court agrees and 

will recommend that the Petition be dismissed with prejudice. 

 In 1998, Petitioner pled guilty to sexual contact with a child under the age of 15, 

and to two counts of attempted sexual contact with a child under the age of 15 (Doc. 13, 

Case 2:15-cv-01097-NVW Document 19 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

Exs. C, D, TT). He was sentenced to 20 years of incarceration and lifetime probation 

(Exs. H, I). 

 Sixteen years later, on September 19, 2014, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus at the Arizona Supreme Court (Ex. NN) which asserted a violation of the 

federal constitution because his case originally filed in Peoria Justice Court, Maricopa 

County, Arizona, was prosecuted in the Superior Court for that county. The Arizona 

Supreme Court denied this petition as well as Owens’ request that the Supreme Court 

take original jurisdiction of his case (Exs. QQ and RR). Owens filed his Petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus in this Court on June 15, 2015 (Doc 1). 

 A prisoner seeking federal habeas relief from a state court conviction is required to 

file the petition within one year of “the date on which the judgment became final by the 

conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The period of limitations is statutorily tolled during the time in 

which a “properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review 

with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending” in the State courts. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(d)(2). If a defendant is convicted pursuant to a guilty plea, then the first postconviction proceeding is considered a form of direct review and the conviction becomes 

“final” for purposes of Section 2244(d)(1)(A) when the Rule 32 of-right proceeding 

concludes. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 414 (2005) (“When a postconviction 

petition is untimely under state law, that is the end of the matter for purposes of § 

2244(d)(2).”) (internal quotation omitted); Summers v. Schriro, 481 F.3d 710, 711 (9th

Cir. 2007) (conviction pursuant to plea agreement is final on expiration of the time for 

seeking Rule 32 relief). As shown in the record before this Court, the state court docket 

reflects a number of Rule 32 post-conviction review proceedings, some of which may 

have tolled the one-year statute of limitations Congress has prescribed. However, there is 

no need to parse each of these proceedings because Owens’ fifth and last one concluded 

when it was dismissed almost 13 years ago (Ex. JJ). Thus there have been no state court 

Case 2:15-cv-01097-NVW Document 19 Filed 04/29/16 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

matters which could have tolled the federal deadline for at least 12 times the one-year 

limitations period. 

 This Court can review Owens’ untimely habeas petition if he can demonstrate that 

he is entitled to equitable tolling by showing both that he pursued his rights diligently and 

that some extraordinary circumstance prevented him from filing his petition. Holland v. 

Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010). He has done neither and it seems exceedingly 

unlikely that he could. Moreover, Owens never properly presented his federal claim to 

the state court and thus this failure to exhaust his claim would doom it as well. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(b)(1), (c); Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Coleman v. Thompson, 

501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Ex. RR. 

 Also pending on the docket are two motions filed by Petitioner. In his discovery 

motion, Petitioner seeks discovery regarding documents from the case originally filed in 

Peoria Justice Court as well as copies of the cases the State of Arizona cites in its 

Response to the Petition. The State kindly provided those cases to Petitioner in its 

Response to his motion for discovery and thus Petitioner has now had the opportunity to 

review the case authority declaring groundless his claim that the prosecution of his case 

in Superior Court instead of in Peoria Justice Court violated the Fourteenth Amendment. 

This is because a complaint about state court jurisdiction is a matter of state law and is 

not subject to federal habeas review. Although it was not critical to the Ninth Circuit’s 

holding in Hernandez v. Yist, 930 F.2d 714 (9th Cir. 1991), the Court there explained 

“[w]e are not persuaded that a constitutional violation necessarily occurs when the 

convicting state court acts without jurisdiction purely as a matter of state law.” Id. at 

719. It is important to add that this is not to say that Arizona state law was violated; it is 

enough to say that if the prosecution of Owens’ case in Superior Court had been such a 

violation, any complaint about this would not state a claim subject to federal habeas 

review. Petitioner also sought discovery of the Peoria Justice Court records pertinent to 

his case. Given that his claim is time-barred and is without merit, there is no reason to 

grant this discovery request. 

Case 2:15-cv-01097-NVW Document 19 Filed 04/29/16 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

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 other pending motion, Petitioner seeks an extension of time to file his 

traverse. This Motion sought an extension until 30 days after the disclosure of the 

documents sought in Petitioner’s discovery motion. The extension request will be denied 

as the traverse appears unnecessary to a fair consideration of this Petition. Given that 

Owens’ Petition is time-barred and that Owens will have the opportunity to object to this 

Report and Recommendation and present any argument he wishes to assert in his 

objection (as explained below), Petitioner will have a full opportunity to be heard before 

the District Judge takes dispositive action. If the District Judge wishes to have the 

undersigned consider any such arguments in the first instance, such matters may of 

course be referred to the Magistrate Judge. 

IT IS ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery 

(Doc. 15) and Motion for Enlargement of Time (Doc. 14). 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Lawrence Benny Owens’s Petition 

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

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because dismissal of the petition 

is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the ruling 

debatable. 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. 

The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, 

the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure 

timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may 

result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without 

further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Case 2:15-cv-01097-NVW Document 19 Filed 04/29/16 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 

Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will 

be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an 

order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 

72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 Dated this 29th day of April, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-01097-NVW Document 19 Filed 04/29/16 Page 5 of 5