Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02246/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02246-0/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Fernando R. Molina, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-02246-TUC-DTF

ORDER 

 Fernando Molina has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus brought pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is the Petition (Doc. 1) and Respondents’ 

Answer to Petition (Doc. 15). The parties consented to exercise of jurisdiction by a 

Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Doc. 18.) The Court finds that the 

Petition should be dismissed on the ground that it is time-barred. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

 On November 15, 2010, Molina was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault 

with a deadly weapon and one count of aggravated assault against a minor under fifteen. 

He was sentenced to concurrent terms, the longest of which was twenty-one years. (Doc. 

1 at 2; Doc. 15, Ex. A at 2, 3.) Molina filed a direct appeal, which was denied on August 

19, 2011. (Doc. 15, Ex. A.) His petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court was 

denied on January 10, 2012. (Id., Ex. B.) 

Case 4:14-cv-02246-DTF Document 19 Filed 04/24/15 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

 On February 22, 2012, Molina filed a Notice of Post-conviction Relief (PCR). (Id., 

Ex. C.) Appointed counsel filed a notice that he could not find any colorable claims. (Id., 

Ex. D.) Molina was granted until September 4, 2012, to file a pro se PCR petition. (Id., 

Ex. E.) When he did not file a petition, the PCR court denied relief on October 9, 2012. 

(Id., Ex. F.) 

 On July 25, 2014, Molina filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this 

Court. (Doc. 1.) 

DISCUSSION 

 Respondents argue that Molina’s Petition violates the statute of limitations and is 

time-barred. 

 Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), federal 

petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners are governed by a one-year 

statute of limitations period. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The limitations period begins to run 

from the latest of: 

 (A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion 

 of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review; 

 

 (B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created 

 by State action in violation n of the Constitution or laws of the United 

 States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State 

 action; 

 (C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially 

 recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized 

 by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on 

 collateral review; or 

 (D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims 

 presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 

Id. 

 In applying (d)(1)(A), the Court must assess when direct review of Molina’s 

convictions became final. The Arizona Supreme Court denied review on Molina’s direct 

appeal on January 10, 2012, and his time to petition for a writ of certiorari from the 

Case 4:14-cv-02246-DTF Document 19 Filed 04/24/15 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

United States Supreme Court expired ninety days later, on April 9, 2012. Sup. Ct. R. 13. 

Thus, the judgment against Molina became final on that date. See Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 

1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that “direct review” includes the period during which 

a petitioner can petition for writ of certiorari, regardless of whether the petitioner seeks 

such review); see also Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113, 119 (2009) (finding direct 

review to include the time up to the expiration of the period to seek review by the 

Supreme Court). 

 The statute of limitations is tolled during the time a properly filed state PCR 

application is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Molina already had pending a PCR 

proceeding at the time his judgment became final, therefore, the statute of limitations was 

immediately statutorily tolled on April 10, 2012. Cf. Isley v. Ariz. Dep’t of Corrections, 

383 F.3d 1054, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding that tolling period begins with filing of 

notice pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.4(a)). This PCR proceeding 

was dismissed by the trial court on October 9, 2012, and, with no pending proceedings 

before any state court, the statute of limitations began to run the following day, on 

October 10, 2012. 

 The AEDPA statute of limitations expired one year later on October 9, 2013. 

Because Petitioner did not file his habeas Petition until July 25, 2014, the one-year statute 

of limitation already had run. 

 Petitioner raised no argument for equitable tolling in the Petition and he did not 

file a Reply.1

 The Court can find no obvious basis for the untimeliness of this filing. The 

Petition is statutorily time-barred. 

 

1 The Court-approved § 2254 form petition sets forth 17 questions. Question 16 asks 

the petitioner to discuss the timeliness of the petition in light of § 2244(d). Molina’s 

counsel followed the format of the Court’s form, however, he included only the first 15 

questions in Molina’s Petition. (Doc. 1 at 13.) 

Case 4:14-cv-02246-DTF Document 19 Filed 04/24/15 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

 Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, this Court 

must issue or deny a certificate of appealability (COA) at the time it issues a final order 

adverse to the applicant. A COA may issue only when the petitioner “has made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This 

showing can be established by demonstrating that “reasonable jurists could debate 

whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a 

different manner” or that the issues were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 

further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 

U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). For procedural rulings, a COA will issue only if reasonable 

jurists could debate (1) whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right, and (2) whether the court’s procedural ruling was correct. Id. The 

Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find this Court’s procedural ruling 

debatable. Therefore, a COA will not issue. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court should enter judgment and 

close this case. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court denies issuance of a 

certificate of appealability. 

 Dated this 24th day of April, 2015. 

Case 4:14-cv-02246-DTF Document 19 Filed 04/24/15 Page 4 of 4