Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00239/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00239-0/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 Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner’s

deadline under the AEDPA for filing this action, when the appropriate statutory

tolling is factored in, was June 27, 2004; this action was, however, not filed until

February 2, 2009.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Justin Terrence Monroe,

 Petitioner,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, 

 Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-0239-PHX-PGR (MHB)

 

 ORDER

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Burns in light of the petitioner’s Objection and Appeal from Magistrate’s

Report and Recommendation (Doc. 24), the Court finds that the petitioner’s

objections should be overruled as legally meritless and that the Magistrate Judge

correctly determined that this action should be dismissed as time-barred as it was

filed more than four and a half years after the expiration of the AEDPA’s one-year

statute of limitations.1

With regard to the dispositive timeliness issue, the petitioner disagrees with

Case 2:09-cv-00239-PGR Document 25 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 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

2

 The Court notes that it delayed the issuance of this Order pending the

Supreme Court’s decision in Holland v. Florida given that the main issue to be

decided by the Supreme Court in that case was whether the AEDPA’s limitations

period is subject to the doctrine of equitable tolling.

3

 The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the petitioner was not

reasonably diligent in that he filed his federal habeas petition over four and a half

years after the limitations period had expired, and that he let 204 days lapse after

the state trial court dismissed his first Rule 32 proceeding before he filed his

motion for reconsideration, that he let 373 days lapse between the trial court’s

denial of his motion for reconsideration of the order denying his request for

transcripts and his second notice of post conviction relief (which was filed more

than a year after the expiration of the AEDPA’s limitations period), he let 147

days lapse between the dismissal of his second notice of post-conviction relief

and his status request concerning his motion for appointment of counsel, and he

let 121 days lapse between the Arizona Supreme Court’s order denying review in

his fourth Rule 32 proceeding and the filing of his federal habeas petition.

- 2 -

the Magistrate Judge’s determination that he is not entitled to have the limitations

period equitably tolled. The AEDPA’s statute of limitations is subject to equitable

tolling only if the prisoner shows (1) that he has been pursuing his rights with

reasonable diligence, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his

way and prevented the timely filing of his federal habeas petition. Holland v.

Florida, U.S. , S.Ct. , 2010 WL 2346549, at *12 (June 14, 2010).2 The

Magistrate Judge concluded that the petitioner failed to meet either of these

conditions and the Court concurs.3

The gist of the petitioner’s argument in his Objection for equitable tolling

appears to be that the long delay in him being able to obtain his trial transcripts

constitutes an extraordinary circumstance beyond his control that prevented the

timely filing of his habeas petition. The Court is unpersuaded. As the Magistrate

Judge noted, the petitioner has failed to sufficiently explain why the transcripts

were necessary to the filing of his habeas petition given that the factual

Case 2:09-cv-00239-PGR Document 25 Filed 07/14/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

predicates for the claims raised in his petition were known to him prior to the

expiration of the AEDPA’s limitations period. See e.g., Jihad v. Hvass, 267 F.3d

803, 806 (8th Cir.2001) (“Likewise, lack of access to a trial transcript does not

preclude a petitioner from commencing post-conviction proceedings and

therefore does not warrant equitable tolling.”) Therefore,

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

(Doc. 23) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of

Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is denied as time-barred and

that this action is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly.

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

DATED this 13th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00239-PGR Document 25 Filed 07/14/10 Page 3 of 3