Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01399/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01399-0/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

Jason Lusian 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Warden Kimble, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1399-PHX-DGC (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE DAVID G. CAMPBELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

BACKGROUND

Pending before the court is Petitioner Jason Lusian's pro se Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. #1. Pursuant to plea agreements in two

different cases, Petitioner was convicted and sentenced on March 10, 2000, in the Maricopa

County Superior Court. Doc. #14, Exh. K, L. In the first case, Petitioner pled guilty to one

count of attempted sexual conduct with a minor and was sentenced to lifetime probation,

which is scheduled to begin following his release from the prison sentence imposed in the

second case. Id. at Exh. K. In the second case, Petitioner pled guilty to one count of sexual

conduct with a minor and one count of attempted sexual conduct with a minor. Id. at Exh.

L. Petitioner was sentenced to 20 years in prison for the first count and a consecutive term

of lifetime probation on the second count. Id. at Exh. L. 

Case 2:05-cv-01399-DGC Document 16 Filed 04/14/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

On May 11, 2000, Petitioner filed a Notice of Post-Conviction relief under Rule 32

of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Doc. #14, Exh. N. On January 16, 2001, the

attorney appointed to represent Petitioner in the post-conviction proceedings filed a notice

stating that he was unable to find any claims to raise and requesting permission for Petitioner

to file a pro se petition. Id. at Exh. O. Petitioner then filed a pro se Petition for PostConviction Relief on March 6, 2001, within the time set by the trial court. Id. at Exh. Q. The

trial court denied the petition in a Minute Entry filed on May 30, 2001. Id. at Exh. U.

Petitioner sought review in the Arizona Court of Appeals but the request was denied in an

order filed on March 15, 2002, because Petitioner's request for review was not filed within

the 30 day time limit. Id. at Exh. V. Petitioner did not seek review of this first petition with

the Arizona Supreme Court.

Petitioner filed a second Notice of Post-Conviction Relief on February 26, 2003,

which was denied by the trial court on March 24, 2003. Doc. #14, Exh. W, X. Petitioner

filed a Petition for Review to the Arizona Court of Appeals which was denied on May 26,

2004. Id. at Exh. Y, Z. Petitioner's subsequent Petition for Review to the Arizona Supreme

Court was denied on October 26, 2004. Id. at Exh. AA, BB. 

On May 11, 2005, Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this court.

Doc. #1. On August 15, 2005, Respondents filed an Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus. Doc. #14. Petitioner did not file a reply despite being told he could do so in the

screening order. Doc. #5 at 2.

DISCUSSION

Respondents contend that the petition should be dismissed because it was not filed

within the statute of limitations period. They argue that even though the statute of limitations

was tolled for a period of time, Petitioner still failed to file a timely petition. Respondents

further argue that even if the court finds that the petition was timely, the claims are

procedurally defaulted. Because Petitioner did not file a reply, he has not addressed either

the statute of limitations or procedural default arguments. Based on the information

Case 2:05-cv-01399-DGC Document 16 Filed 04/14/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

presented, the court finds that the habeas petition was not filed within the statute of

limitations period. As a result, the court need not address the procedural default issue. 

 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") imposes a

statute of limitations on federal petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). A state prisoner must file a federal petition within one year from

"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); see also Lott v.

Mueller, 304 F.3d 918, 920 (9th Cir. 2002). However, "[t]he time during which a properly

filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the

pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward" the limitations period.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see also Lott, 304 F.3d at 921. A state petition that is not filed

within the state's required time limit is not "properly filed" and, therefore, the petitioner is

not entitled to statutory tolling. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 1812 (2005). "When

a post-conviction petition is untimely under state law, 'that [is] the end of the matter' for

purposes of § 2244(d)(2)." Id. 

A post-conviction petition is "clearly pending after it is filed with a state court, but

before that court grants or denies the petition." Chavis v. Lemarque, 382 F.3d 921, 925 (9th

Cir. 2004). In Arizona, post-conviction review is pending once a notice of post-conviction

relief is filed even though the petition is not filed until later. Isley v. Arizona Department of

Corrections, 383 F.3d 1054, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). An application for post-conviction relief

is also pending during the intervals between a lower court decision and a review by a higher

court. See Biggs v. Duncan, 339 F.3d 1045, 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Carey v. Saffold,

536 U.S. 214, 223 (2002). However, the time between a first and second application for

post-conviction relief is not tolled because no application is "pending" during that period.

Biggs, 339 F.3d at 1048; see also King v. Roe, 340 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 2003) (The petitioner

was "not entitled to tolling during the interval between the completion of one round of state

collateral review and the commencement of a second round of review."). Moreover, filing

a new petition for post-conviction relief does not reinitiate a limitations period that ended

Case 2:05-cv-01399-DGC Document 16 Filed 04/14/06 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

before the new petition was filed. See Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir.

2003). 

 Petitioner was convicted and sentenced on March 10, 2000. Doc. #14, Exh. K, L.

By pleading guilty, Petitioner waived his right to a direct appeal. See Ariz. R. Crim. P.

17.1(e). As a result, the judgement became final for statute of limitations purposes on March

10, 2000 and the limitations period began to run on that date. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).

Petitioner filed his first notice of post-conviction relief on May 11, 2000, thus tolling the

statute of limitations period after 62 days had passed. Doc. #14, Exh. N. The petition itself

was then filed on March 6, 2001. Id. at Exh. Q. The trial court denied the petition on May

30, 2001. Id. at Exh. U. Although Petitioner sought review in the Arizona Court of Appeals,

he failed to do so within 30 days. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c) (petition for review must be

filed withing 30 days after the final decision of the trial court). As result, the petition for

review was denied as untimely in an order filed on March 15, 2002. Doc. #14, Exh. V.

Because the petition for review was not timely, it was not "properly filed" as required

by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). See DiGuglielmo, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 1814 (2005). As a result, the

tolling period for the post-conviction proceedings ended upon the expiration of the 30 day

time limit for filing a petition for review because anything filed after that date was not

"properly filed." Therefore, the statute of limitations was tolled from May 11, 2000 (the

filing date of the notice of post-conviction relief) to June 29, 2001 (the expiration date for

a "properly filed" petition for review), after which it began to run again. After considering

the 62 days that had already run, Petitioner had 303 days remaining, until April 28, 2002,

before the statute of limitations expired. Petitioner did not file his federal habeas petition

until May 11, 2005, more than three years after the deadline. 

Petitioner filed a second notice of post-conviction relief on February 26, 2003. Doc.

#14, Exh. W. However, the time between the two applications for post-conviction relief was

not tolled. See Biggs, 339 F.3d at 1048. Consequently, by the time Petitioner filed the

second notice, the limitations period had already expired. Moreover, the filing of the new

Case 2:05-cv-01399-DGC Document 16 Filed 04/14/06 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

notice did not resurrect the already expired limitations period. See Ferguson, 321 F.3d at

823. 

For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that Petitioner's habeas petition filed on May

11, 2005, is untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), (2). The court will therefore recommend

that the petition be denied and dismissed. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:

 That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. #1)

be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

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 ten 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); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which to file a

response to the objections. Failure to timely 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). Failure to timely 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 of judgement entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

DATED this 14th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01399-DGC Document 16 Filed 04/14/06 Page 5 of 5