Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02049/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02049-1/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 Limon Frausto, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Arizona, State of, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-02049-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge 

James F. Metcalf, (Doc. 18), regarding Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, (Doc. 9). The R&R recommends that the 

petition 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. 18 at 14 (citing 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)).) Respondent, the State of Arizona (the “State”) filed its 

“Objections to Report and Recommendation” on November 3, 2015. (Doc. 19.) 

Petitioner did not respond. 

The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the R&R 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 sustains the State’s Objections, but agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s 

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

Case 2:14-cv-02049-DLR Document 20 Filed 12/08/15 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 

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”). 

In its Objection, the State agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion, but 

challenges the R&R regarding the statutory tolling determination. The State agrees with 

the R&R that the 1-year statute of limitation of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death 

Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) began running on February 23, 2007, the day after the 

time for direct review ended. The State also agrees with the R&R that the 1-year statute 

of limitations ran for 27 days until March 22, 2007, when Petitioner filed his first petition 

for post-conviction relief (“PCR”) and was tolled until March 28, 2008, when the 

Maricopa County Superior Court dismissed Petitioner’s PCR. However, the State 

disagrees with the R&R about there being any tolling of the statute of limitations after 

that. The period of tolling that is challenged in the objection is the time after the Superior 

Court dismissed the PCR until further state review could have been sought on a state 

PCR. 

When a PCR proceeding is summarily dismissed and no further review is sought, 

statutory tolling ends. There is no statutory tolling after a PCR is dismissed and no 

further review is sought. Hemmerle v. Schriro, 495 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2007). The end 

date for statutory tolling here was March 24, 2008, when the Superior Court summarily 

dismissed the PCR. AEDPA’s 1-year statute of limitations began to run on March 25, 

2008 and expired 338 days later on February 26, 2009. 

IT IS ORDERED sustaining the objection to the Report and Recommendation, 

(Doc. 19). The 1-year AEDPA statute of limitations expired on February 26, 2009. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge, (Doc. 18), is accepted with the exceptions noted above. 

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. 

Case 2:14-cv-02049-DLR Document 20 Filed 12/08/15 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 

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

and dismissing Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, (Doc. 9), with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

Dated this 8th day of December, 2015. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-02049-DLR Document 20 Filed 12/08/15 Page 3 of 3