Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01606/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01606-2/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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Ronnie Hursey, Sr., 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-12-01606-PHX-SRB

ORDER 

 Petitioner, Ronnie Hursey, Sr., filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on 

July 26, 2012. Petitioner raised four grounds for relief. Petitioner alleged that 1) trial 

counsel was ineffective in failing to advise him concerning the terms of a plea offer; 2) he 

was deprived of due process at trial, sentencing, appeal and post-conviction relief 

proceedings; 3) his Fifth Amendment rights were violated by a multiplicitous indictment 

and prosecutorial misconduct; and 4) the cumulative impact of the errors at his trial 

violated his right to present a complete defense. Respondents answered arguing that 

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is time barred. Petitioner filed a reply in 

support of his Petition. 

 On April 29, 2013 the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation 

finding that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is barred by the statute of 

limitations because Petitioner did not file his federal habeas petition until approximately 

nine months after the one-year statute of limitations set out in 28 U.S.C. §2244 had 

expired. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Petition be denied and dismissed 

Case 2:12-cv-01606-SRB Document 19 Filed 08/08/13 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 

with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that a Certificate of 

Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied. 

 Petitioner filed a document entitled, “Timely Objections to the Magistrate 

Judges(sic) Report and Recommendation” dated May 8, 2013 and received by this Court 

on June 4, 2013. In his objections, Petitioner does not contest the lack of timely filing of 

his Petition but claims that he is entitled to equitable tolling. In the reply he filed in 

response to Defendants’ argument that his Petition was untimely, Petitioner had asserted 

that lack of counsel should excuse his untimely filing. But the Magistrate Judge noted 

that this argument is unavailing because Petitioner’s pro se status, ignorance of the law, 

or lack of representation during the applicable filing period do not constitute the 

extraordinary circumstances that will justify equitable tolling. See, e.g. Rasberry v. 

Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006); Robinson v. Kramer, 588 F.3d 1212, 1216 

(9th Cir. 2009). The Magistrate Judge also rejected any argument that it was not feasible 

for Petitioner to timely file his Petition because the state court had not ruled on his third 

Petition for Post-Conviction Relief until October 2012. Petitioner had filed his Habeas 

Petition on July 26, 2012. The Superior Court dismissed his third Notice of PostConviction of Relief on October 12, 2012, almost three months later. Finally, the 

Magistrate Judge rejected Petitioner’s assertion that he acted with reasonable diligence 

because Petitioner failed to adequately explain why he filed his Petition approximately 

nine months after the statute of limitations expired. 

 Petitioner’s 25-page objections cite and quote from numerous cases1

 but Petitioner 

fails to specifically address how the Magistrate Judge erred in his findings of fact or in 

 

1

 Petitioner’s objections contain an extended discussion about, and citation to, 

cases on procedural default, and the requirements of cause and prejudice to excuse a procedural default. The concept of procedural default in federal habeas petitions relates to the requirement for first presenting federal claims to the state court in a procedurally correct manner, e.g. on appeal or in a timely filed Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. 

Procedural default and circumstances establishing cause and prejudice to excuse such a default are not the standard for equitable tolling of the one-year statute of limitations. The Magistrate Judge correctly described the requirements for equitable tolling in his Report and Recommendation at pages 5 and 6. 

 

Case 2:12-cv-01606-SRB Document 19 Filed 08/08/13 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 

his legal conclusions. Petitioner has failed to show any grounds for equitable tolling of 

the statute of limitations because Petitioner has failed to show any extraordinary 

circumstance that would justify such tolling and has failed to show reasonable diligence. 

 IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s 

Report and Recommendation. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court. (Doc. 14) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying and dismissing with prejudice the Petition 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus because it is barred by the statute of limitations. (Doc. 1) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a 

plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. 

 

 Dated this 8th day of August, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-01606-SRB Document 19 Filed 08/08/13 Page 3 of 3