Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01086/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01086-1/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

Theodore Alan May,

Petitioner, 

v.

Charles L. Ryan, et. al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 12-CV-1086-PHX-PGR (JFM)

 ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Metcalf

(Doc. 17), which addresses Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). Petitioner has filed objections to the Report and

Recommendation. (Doc. 18.)

Magistrate Judge Metcalf 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). Specifically, Magistrate Judge Metcalf concludes that the

Petitioner is not eligible for statutory or equitable tolling. (Doc. 17 at 6–9.)

Petitioner was sentenced on April 7, 2008. (Doc. 12, Ex. L.) His conviction became

final on July 8, 2008, at which point his one-year limitation period commenced. He filed his

petition on May 22, 2012, nearly three years past the one-year deadline.

As stated in the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner is ineligible for statutory

tolling. His PCR petition was dismissed as untimely under state law; it was therefore not

“properly filed” so as to toll the statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(2); Pace v.

Case 2:12-cv-01086-PGR Document 20 Filed 07/08/13 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 -

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005). Petitioner is likewise ineligible for equitable tolling. He

suggests that his pro se status and lack of legal knowledge and resources impeded his ability

to file a timely petition. This conclusory assertion fails to meet the exceptionally high burden

required for a showing of “extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner’s control [that]

make it impossible to file a petition on time.” Law v. Lamarque, 351 F.3d 919, 922 (9th Cir.

2003); see Felder v. Johnson, 204 F.3d 168, 171 (5th Cir. 2000); Rasberry v. Garcia, 448

F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Having reviewed this matter de novo in light of Petitioner’s objections, the Court will

adopt the Report and Recommendation, deny the habeas petition, and dismiss the action.

Accordingly,

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

Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED by the Court.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.

1) is DISMISSED and DENIED with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING a Certificate of Appealability.

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

DATED this 8th day of July, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-01086-PGR Document 20 Filed 07/08/13 Page 2 of 2