Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00538/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00538-0/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

1

In his reply, Betters states that appellate counsel failed to inform Betters that he

had not filed a p et ition for review. He eventually obtained pro bono counsel, who

successfully petitioned the court of appeals for an extension until April 1, 2002, to file his

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas E. Betters, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

McWilliams, Warden; Attorney General

of the State of Arizona, 

Respondents 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-0538-PHX-NVW (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE NEIL V. WAKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Thomas E. Betters filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on February 13, 2006,

challenging his convictions for first degree murder and influencing a witness, and the trial

court's imposition of consecutive prison t erms. He contends in his federal petition that trial

counsel was ineffective by not obtaining an expert to discredit the testimony of a witness

regarding ballistics evidence. Respondents argue that Betters' petition is untimely. The

Court agrees and recommends that Betters' petit ion be denied and dismissed with

prejudice.

Betters sought direct review; the court of appeals affirmed Betters' convictions and

sentences in a memorandum decision dated August 22, 2000 (Doc. #9, Exh C). Betters did

not seek review in the supreme court.1

 The court of appeals issued a mandate on October

Case 2:06-cv-00538-NVW Document 13 Filed 08/30/06 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

petition for review.

2

T he p et it ion was actually filed in the district court on February 22, 2006, but under

the prison mailbox rule the petition is deemed filed on the date the petition is delivered to

prison authorities for mailing. See Jenkins v. Johnson, 330 F.3d 1146, 1149 n.2 (9th Cir.

2003).

- 2 -

4, 2000 (Doc. #12, at t achment). The court of appeals vacated the mandate on February 28,

2002, extending the t ime for Betters to file a petition for review until April 1, 2002 (Id.). He

filed a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief on May 13, 2002; his counseled petition filed July

7, 2003 was summarily denied by the trial court on September 18, 2003, and relief was

denied by the court of appeals on February 27, 2005 (Doc. #9, Exh D, E, F). 

Betters was required to file his federal petit ion wit hin 1 year of the date the judgment

of conviction became final in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Betters' case became final

on direct review on April 1, 2002, the date upon which the time for filing a petition for review

to the Arizona Supreme Court expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Therefore, the

deadline for filing his federal p etition was April 1, 2003. However, "the time during which

a properly filed application for post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the

pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be count ed toward any period of

limitation." See 2244(d)(2). The limitations period began to run on April 2, 2002, but was

tolled 41 days later, on M ay 13, 2002, when he filed his notice of post-conviction relief. See

Isley v. Az. Dept. of Corrections, 383 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir. 2004). It was tolled until

February 27, 2005, t he day relief was denied by the court of appeals. Betters filed his

petition 351 day s lat er, on February 13, 2006.2 The limitations period ran for a total of 392

days, or 27 days past the one-year statute of limitations. 

Case 2:06-cv-00538-NVW Document 13 Filed 08/30/06 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

His appellate attorney's lack of diligence, as suggested by attachments filed with

his Reply, does not aid Betters, as it occurred prior to the court of appeals' action in

vacat ing t he original mandate, and extending the time for him to file a petition for review.

- 3 -

In addition, Betters is not entitled t o equitable tolling. He has not shown

extraordinary circumstances beyond his cont rol which made it impossible for him to timely

file. Green v. White, 223 F.3d 1001, 1003 (9th Cir. 2000).3

 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Betters' Petition be DENIED AND

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (Doc. #1).

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment . The

parties shall have t en days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72,

6(a), 6(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the p art ies have ten days within

which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file object ions t o the Magistrate

Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and

Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely t o file objections to any factual

determinations of the M agist rat e Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to

appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 29th day of August, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00538-NVW Document 13 Filed 08/30/06 Page 3 of 3