Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02820/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02820-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Anthony Rustin,

Petitioner,

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-19-02820-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge 

Eileen S. Willett (Doc. 13) regarding Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that the petition be denied

and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had 

fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of the R&R to file specific written 

objections with the Court. (Doc. at 13.) Petitioner filed an objection to the R&R on March 

11, 2020, (Doc. 14); Respondents filed no response. 

The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and 

Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The 

Magistrate Judge correctly found that Petitioner’s petition is untimely, that equitable tolling 

is unavailable, and that the actual innocence/Schlup gateway does not apply to excuse the 

untimeliness of the petition. Petitioner’s brief objection does not point to any particular 

error in the R&R, but instead asserts that his petition should not be considered untimely

Case 2:19-cv-02820-DLR Document 15 Filed 06/01/20 Page 1 of 2
- 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

because he is pro se, noting that he “has diligently proceeded without counsel and has been 

extremely limited to resources and assistance in dealing with these Court proceedings.” 

(Doc. 14 at 1.) As emphasized by the Magistrate Judge, “[a] petitioner’s pro se status, on 

its own, is not enough to warrant equitable tolling.” (Doc. 13 at 6 (citing Johnson v. United 

States, 544 U.S. 295, 311 (2005))). Petitioner has not alleged other facts that might 

constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling or made additional 

arguments that otherwise suggest that the Magistrate Judge erred. 

IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc.18) is ACCEPTED. 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

IT IS ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis on appeal are DENIED because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain 

procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable, and because 

Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The 

Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment denying and dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) with prejudice and shall 

terminate this action.

Dated this 29th day of May, 2020.

Douglas L. Rayes

United States District Judge

Case 2:19-cv-02820-DLR Document 15 Filed 06/01/20 Page 2 of 2