Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02434/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02434-0/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 

Anthony William Coleman,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Attorney General of the State of Arizona, et 

al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-02434-PHX-PGR

ORDER 

 The Court has before it the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 13) of 

Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns, filed on September 15, 2015. Petitioner has filed 

objections to the R&R (Doc. 14). The Court, having reviewed de novo the R&R, 

Petitioner’s objections, and the entire record in this matter, will overrule the objections. 

 Petitioner’s objections relate to the R&R’s determination that Martinez v. Ryan, 

132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), is inapplicable and does not excuse the untimeliness of 

Petitioner’s federal habeas petition. Specifically, Petitioner contends that he did not learn 

of the Martinez decision until 2013, so he could not have filed his claim based on 

Martinez until that time. 

 As found in the R&R, Martinez is inapplicable here. At issue in Martinez was 

“whether a federal habeas court may excuse a procedural default of an ineffectiveassistance claim when the claim was not properly presented in state court due to an 

attorney’s errors in an initial-review collateral proceeding.” Martinez, 132 S. Ct. at 1313 

(emphasis added). The Supreme Court held that such a procedural default could be 

Case 2:14-cv-02434-PGR Document 15 Filed 11/05/15 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

excused if the failure to raise the issue in state court was due to the ineffective assistance 

of counsel (or lack or counsel) at the initial-review collateral proceeding. Id. at 1320. 

 Thus, Martinez is applicable when the issue is procedural default of a claim. 

Martinez did not, however, address and is therefore not applicable when the issue is 

whether a claim is untimely due to the running of the AEDPA limitations period. See 

Brown v. Ryan, 2015 WL 3990513, at *9 (D. Ariz. 2015) (“The Martinez decision does 

not address the timeliness of a habeas petition or the tolling of the AEDPA limitations 

period.”); Wheelwright v. Wofford, 2014 WL 3851155, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (“Although 

the rule in Martinez is an equitable one, it applied only to procedural default issues and 

does not apply to equitable tolling principles pertinent to the AEDPA limitations issue.”); 

Perry v. Uribe, 2014 WL 4463120, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (“Martinez dealt solely with 

the state procedural default doctrine, which is entirely different from the issue presented 

here of whether Petitioner herein (including the ineffective assistance of trial counsel 

claim alleged in Ground 2) was time barred under the AEDPA statute of limitations.”); 

see also White v. Martel, 601 F.3d 882, 884 (9th Cir. 2010) (the adequacy analysis used 

to decide procedural default issues is inapplicable to the determination of whether a 

federal habeas petition was barred by the AEDPA statute of limitations).

 In the present case, at issue is not whether Petitioner’s claim is procedurally 

defaulted, but rather whether Petitioner’s claim is time barred by the AEDPA limitations 

period. Accordingly, Martinez is inapplicable and the timing of when Petitioner learned 

of Martinez is irrelevant. 

 The Court agrees with and adopts the R&R, including the determination that the 

statute of limitations ran prior to Petitioner’s filing of his habeas petition, and that his 

petition is therefore untimely. 

 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 

13) is accepted and adopted by the Court. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 5) is denied and 

that this action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment 

Case 2:14-cv-02434-PGR Document 15 Filed 11/05/15 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

accordingly. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall be issued 

and that the petitioner is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis because dismissal of the 

Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the 

procedural ruling debatable. 

 Dated this 4th day of November, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-02434-PGR Document 15 Filed 11/05/15 Page 3 of 3