Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02232/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02232-1/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

1 On September 10, 2007, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s life

sentence for first-degree murder. State v. Canez, 2007 WL 5595966 (App. 2007). Petitioner’s

conviction became final 30 days later. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(a) 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Arturo A. Canez,

Petitioner, 

v.

Charles L. Ryan, et. al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 12-CV-2232-PHX-PGR (SPL)

 ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Logan (Doc.

32), which addresses Petitioner’s First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed

February 25, 2013, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 12). Petitioner filed objections to the

Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 34.)

 Magistrate Judge Logan recommends that the Court deny the petition as barred by

the one-year statute of limitations set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Magistrate Judge Logan concludes that Petitioner is not

eligible for statutory or equitable tolling. Having reviewed the matter de novo, the Court will

adopt the Report and Recommendation.

Petitioner’s convictions and sentences became final on October 7, 2011.1

 The

limitations period was statutorily tolled until April 29, 2011, when Petitioner’s timely-filed

Case 2:12-cv-02232-PGR Document 36 Filed 06/13/14 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

petition for postconviction relief was denied. (Doc. 20-2, Ex. P.) Petitioner filed his petition

for habeas corpus relief on October 18, 2012 (Doc. 1), nearly six months after the limitations

period expired. 

For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner’s argument

for additional statutory tolling fails because after April 29, 2011, no timely petition for

review was pending. (See Doc. 32 at 14–15; Doc. 20-2, Ex. R.) Petitioner’s arguments for

equitable tolling fail to meet the exceptionally high burden required for a showing that he had

been “pursuing his rights diligently” and that “some extraordinary circumstances stood in

[his] way.” Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418–19 (2005); see, e.g., Law v. Lamarque,

351 F.3d 919, 922 (9th Cir. 2003); Whalem/Hunt v. Early, 233 F.3d 1146, 1148 (9th Cir.

2000). Finally, Petitioner’s actual innocence argument fails because it is not supported by

new evidence showing factual innocence. See Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 324 (1995).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Logan’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 32) is accepted and adopted by the Court. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s First Amended Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus is dismissed and denied with prejudice. (Doc. 12.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability and denying

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because Petitioner has not made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Petitioner’s motion for an extension of the

deadline for responding to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 12.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

DATED this 12th day of June, 2014.

Case 2:12-cv-02232-PGR Document 36 Filed 06/13/14 Page 2 of 2