Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02490/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02490-2/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

1

 Petitioner filed a second petition for habeas corpus with this Court before filing his

objections to the Report and Recommendation (dkt. 25), which is a mirror image of the

original Petition. The Court will dismiss the second petition on the grounds that is a

successive petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Dennis Mott, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-2490-PHX-SMM

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”).1

 The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge

Virginia A. Mathis for a Report and Recommendation. On April 24, 2006, the Magistrate

Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court. (Dkt. 20.) On May 30, 2006,

Petitioner filed his objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 26.) 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court “must

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,”

and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

Case 2:05-cv-02490-SMM Document 27 Filed 06/07/06 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

27

28

2

 This 14-year term was to be served consecutively to terms imposed in another case

on new charges, CR-140943, which are not challenged here. 

- 2 -

made by the Magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454

(9th Cir. 1983)). 

After reviewing the voluminous filings in this matter, the Magistrate Judge

recommended that the Petition be denied on the basis that the writ is barred by the statute of

limitations governing the filing of petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and there is no basis for

tolling the period of limitations. 

The extensive procedural history of this case is set forth in Respondents’ Answer to

the Petition (dkt. 13), the reported opinions of the Arizona state courts, and the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation (dkt. 20). In essence, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty

under North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), on May 8, 1984, to a charge of

kidnaping, a Class 2 felony, in the state court of Arizona, case number CR-138698. Prior to

entering his guilty plea, Petitioner took a unilateral lie detector test, which he professed

demonstrated his innocence. Despite his proclaimed innocence, he entered his plea of guilty

wherein he knowingly, voluntarily, and understandingly waived all of his rights, including

any defenses he may have had at the time. (Dkt. 13, Ex. F.) After being sentenced to a term

of imprisonment upon his revocation on CR-138698,2

 Petitioner began an extensive series

of filings in state and federal court, beginning in May 1986. The gravamen of Petitioner’s

claims are the same as those alleged in his current Petition: actual innocence of the kidnaping

crime based on the 1984 self-selected polygraph examination results, along with a few other

related and previously alleged claims.

Over the years, the Courts have denied Petitioner’s claims for relief because (i) the

results of polygraph tests, absent a stipulation, are not admissible evidence in a criminal trial;

(ii) at the time of plea, Petitioner waived any defenses he had; and (iii) Petitioner often failed

Case 2:05-cv-02490-SMM Document 27 Filed 06/07/06 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

27

28

- 3 -

to complete his remedies through the courts, waiving any future rights to present claims, and

the claims were procedurally defaulted.

Having reviewed Petitioner’s objections and, thereafter, having reviewed the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the record de novo, the Court finds that:

Petitioner’s claims for relief are barred by the statute of limitations.

Moreover, Petitioner’s objections merely restate the claims of his initial Petition, and

recite propositions of general habeas law. His objections, however, do not focus on the

Magistrate Judge’s specific findings or conclusions. 

As the Magistrate Judge appropriately found, Petitioner was required to file any

federal habeas claims not later than April 24, 1997, and, after almost eight years, Petitioner

has not demonstrated any reason for tolling the statute of limitations. This Court agrees. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge (dkt. 20).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

is DENIED with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent to Magistrate

Judge Virginia A. Mathis. 

DATED this 5th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02490-SMM Document 27 Filed 06/07/06 Page 3 of 3