Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08185/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08185-1/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mel Harris, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-8185-PCT-SRB

ORDER

Petitioner Mel Harris filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on September 23,

2010 making two claims of Fourth Amendment violations and two claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel. Respondents filed a limited answer on November 8, 2010 asserting

that the petition was filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations established in 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(1) and that Petitioner procedurally defaulted his claims by failing to exhaust them

before the state court prior to the filing of his habeas petition. Petitioner filed a reply to the

Respondents' limited answer on December 9, 2010, asserting that his petition was timely filed

because the statute of limitations should be tolled during the pendency of his state court

Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and because of various physical and mental problems

Petitioner experienced. 

The Magistrate Judge issued her Report and Recommendation on January 20, 2011

concluding that the petition was filed after the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations

Case 3:10-cv-08185-SRB Document 16 Filed 03/29/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

and that Petitioner was not entitled equitable tolling. The Magistrate Judge recommended

that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner filed timely objections

to the Report and Recommendation on March 21, 2011 arguing that he was entitled to

equitable tolling urging the Court to be flexible on the issue of equitable tolling and to

consider that Respondents had not claimed any prejudice in their answer to the habeas

petition. Respondents filed a response to the objection urging the Court to overrule the

objections and adopt the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation because of the

untimely filing of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

The relevant dates with respect to the statute of limitations issue are as follows. 

Petitioner was convicted and sentenced on November 14, 2006 and timely appealed his

conviction to the Arizona Court of Appeals. On April 15, 2008, the Arizona Court of Appeals

affirmed his conviction and sentence. Petitioner did not file a Petition for Review of the

Court of Appeals' decision to the Arizona Supreme Court. His conviction became final on

May 15, 2008. Absent equitable tolling, the deadline for Petitioner to file any Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus was May 15, 2009. On May 6, 2009, Petitioner filed a Notice of

Post-Conviction Relief in the state court. Because that notice was filed untimely, Petitioner

claimed the exception to the timeliness requirement that facts exist which would establish by

clear and convincing evidence that he was actually innocent. Petitioner did not elaborate in

his notice on any of the facts that would support his claim of actual innocence. On May 11,

2009, the Notice of Post-Conviction Relief was summarily dismissed as untimely. Petitioner

did not file a petition to review the trial court's decision in the Arizona Court of Appeals.

Petitioner's next filing is this habeas petition filed September 23, 2010. 

As previously noted, absent equitable tolling the petition was due to be filed on May

15, 2009. Even if the Petition for Post-Conviction Relief filed in state court could be

considered timely, it was dismissed on May 11, 2009. The instant petition was not filed

until 16 months thereafter. But as noted by the Magistrate Judge, Petitioner's Petition for

Post-Conviction Relief was dismissed as untimely on May 11, 2009. Because it was not

timely filed, there was no equitable tolling for the few days that his petition was pending. 

Case 3:10-cv-08185-SRB Document 16 Filed 03/29/11 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Petitioner's habeas petition was due to be filed May 15, 2009 and is untimely unless

Petitioner can demonstrate grounds for equitable tolling. Petitioner argues in reply that his

petition should be equitably tolled based on alleged mental handicaps and a brain aneurysm.

Petitioner submitted no medical records or evidence of any kind to support his claims that

he was unable to pursue his rights diligently because of any alleged mental and physical

problems. The Magistrate Judge specifically noted that the trial and appellate court records

reflect no concern by Petitioner's counsel or the Court concerning competency. Even the

date of his alleged stroke in December 2008 does not explain his failure to timely file his

Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, which was due in June 2008. Moreover, in his untimely

petition filed May 6, 2009 he did not raise any of the issues he now claims with respect to

mental capacity. Finally, Petitioner fails to explain how his alleged mental and physical

limitations prevented him from filing his petition for more than 16 months after the dismissal

of his state Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. The Magistrate Judge concluded, and this

Court agrees, that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that equitable tolling applies in his

case.

IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner's objections to the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied

and dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a certificate of appealibility and leave to

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

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

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-08185-SRB Document 16 Filed 03/29/11 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

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

 

DATED this 29th day of March, 2011.

Case 3:10-cv-08185-SRB Document 16 Filed 03/29/11 Page 4 of 4