Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00176/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00176-0/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

John Calvin Neuendorf II, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-0176-PHX-DJH (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE DIANE J. HUMETEWA, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 John Calvin Neuendorf II filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on January 

30, 2014, challenging his convictions, pursuant to a plea agreement, in Maricopa County 

Superior Court for aggravated assault and attempted aggravated assault. He raises four 

arguments about errors by his counsel, the prosecution, and the trial court during his plea 

colloquy and his sentencing. Respondents contend that his petition is untimely. As 

explained below, the Court recommends that Neuendorf’s Petition be denied and 

dismissed with prejudice. 

BACKGROUND

 Following his November 2009 indictment, Neuendorf entered a plea of guilty in 

Maricopa County Superior Court to one count of attempted aggravated assault, a class 4 

felony, and one count of aggravated assault, a class 3 felony. (Doc. 36, Exs. A, B) 

During his change of plea, the Superior Court advised Neuendorf of all his pertinent 

constitutional rights and rights of review, and then took a recess to allow Neuendorf “the 

Case 2:14-cv-00176-DJH Document 45 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 7
- 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 

opportunity to read and review the entire plea agreement” before accepting his plea. 

(Doc. 36, Ex. B) On April 8, 2011, the Superior Court sentenced Neuendorf to an 

aggravated term of 10 years for the aggravated assault charge to be followed by a 4 year 

term of probation for the attempted aggravated assault charge. (Doc. 36, Ex. C) 

 First Rule 32 Proceeding. On March 6, 2012, nearly a year after his sentencing, 

Neuendorf filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and, in March 9, 2012, he filed a 

Notice of Post-Conviction Relief and a second Petition. (Doc. 36, Exs. D, E, F) 

Together, these documents allege that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, his 

convictions and sentences were unconstitutional, and that newly discovered material facts 

would probably change the verdict or sentence. (Id.) On March 30, 2012, the Superior 

Court found that he had failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted in an 

untimely Rule 32 proceeding and dismissed his post-conviction proceedings. (Doc. 36, 

Ex. G) 

 First Habeas Petition. On April 10, 2012, Neuendorf filed a Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus in this Court and, on July 27, 2012, he filed an Amended Petition. CV12-755-PHX-RCB (DKD) at Docs. 1, 16. Neuendorf affirmatively alleged that he had 

not raised any of his claims to the Arizona Court of Appeals and so, on September 10, 

2012, the Court dismissed the Amended Petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust 

state court remedies. Id. at Doc. 21. 

 Successive Rule 32 Proceedings. On April 11, 2012, Neuendorf filed a Notice of 

Post-Conviction Relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and that the delayed 

filing was because he had been the victim of various assaults. (Doc. 36, Ex. I) On April 

19, 2012, the Court dismissed his Notice because ineffective assistance of counsel claims 

cannot be raised in successive proceedings and because his explanation for the delay did 

“not present a situation where [Neuendorf was] without fault on his part for his late 

filings.” (Doc. 36, Ex. J) On October 12, 2012, and again on November 23, 2012, 

Neuendorf petitioned the Court of Appeals to review the Superior Court’s dismissal of 

Case 2:14-cv-00176-DJH Document 45 Filed 05/04/15 Page 2 of 7
- 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 

his Rule 32 proceedings.1 (Doc. 36, Ex. S) On November 21, 2013, the Court of 

Appeals granted review and denied relief. (Doc. 36, Ex. U) Neuendorf’s motion for 

reconsideration was denied on January 14, 2014, and he did not petition the Arizona 

Supreme Court for review. (Doc. 36, Ex. U) 

 On August 20, 2012, Neuendorf filed a State Court Complaint in Maricopa County 

Superior Court alleging that his conviction and sentence violated the Fourteenth 

Amendment. (Doc. 36, Ex. K) The Court construed this filing as his third untimely Rule 

32 Petition and, on September 18, 2012, dismissed it for failing to raise a claim for which 

relief can be granted in an untimely Rule 32 proceeding. (Doc. 36, Ex. L) 

 On November 26, 2012, Neuendorf filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief in 

Maricopa County Superior Court and, on December 17, 2012, the Court summarily 

dismissed the Petition for failing to raise a claim for which relief can be granted in an 

untimely Rule 32 proceeding and because his claims either were or could have been 

raised in a prior Rule 32 proceeding. (Doc. 36, Exs. M, N) 

 On February 27, 2013, Neuendorf filed a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief in 

Maricopa County Superior Court and, on April 4, 2013, the Court again summarily 

dismissed the Notice for failing to raise a claim for which relief can be granted in an 

untimely Rule 32 proceeding and because his claims either were or could have been 

raised in a prior Rule 32 proceeding. (Doc. 36, Exs. O, P) 

 On October 16, 2013, Neuendorf again filed a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief in 

Maricopa County Superior Court and, on October 30, 2013, the Court again summarily 

dismissed the Notice for failing to raise a claim for which relief can be granted in an 

untimely Rule 32 proceeding and because his claims either were or could have been 

raised in a prior Rule 32 proceeding. (Doc. 36, Exs. Q, R) The Court also noted that 

Neuendorf was not entitled to relief under Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012), 

 

1

 In his October 12, 2012 Petition, Neuendorf wrote that he was requesting review of the Superior Court’s April 18, 2012 decision, but he attached the Superior Court’s September 18, 2012 minute entry. (Doc. 36, Ex. S) In his November 23, 2012 Petition, 

Neuendorf also wrote that he was requesting review of the Superior Court’s April 18, 2012 decision but no minute entry was attached. (Doc. 36, Ex. T) 

Case 2:14-cv-00176-DJH Document 45 Filed 05/04/15 Page 3 of 7
- 4 - 

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 the Martinez decision applied to federal, not state, post-conviction proceedings. 

(Doc. 36, Ex. R) 

 This Habeas Petition. On January 30, 2014, Neuendorf filed the Petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus under review in this case. (Doc. 1) His Petition argues that (1) he 

received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, (2) his sentence violated due process and 

the Eighth Amendment, (3) his plea was not knowingly or intelligently made, and (4) the 

State’s failure to turn over impeachment evidence violated due process. (Id.) 

Respondents contend that his Petition is untimely and that he is not entitled to equitable 

tolling. The Court agrees and recommends that this Petition be denied and dismissed 

with prejudice. 

Neuendorf’s Petition is Untimely. 

A state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief from a state court conviction is 

required to file the petition within one year of “the date on which the judgment became 

final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such 

review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The period of limitations is statutorily tolled during 

the time in which a “properly filed application for State post-conviction or other 

collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending” in the State 

courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). If a defendant is convicted pursuant to a guilty plea, then 

the first post-conviction proceeding is considered a form of direct review and the 

conviction becomes “final” for purposes of Section 2244(d)(1)(A) when the Rule 32 ofright proceeding concludes. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 414 (2005) (“When a 

postconviction petition is untimely under state law, that is the end of the matter for 

purposes of § 2244(d)(2).”) (internal quotation omitted); Summers v. Schriro, 481 F.3d 

710, 711 (9th Cir. 2007) (conviction pursuant to plea agreement is final on expiration of 

the time for seeking Rule 32 relief). 

 Neuendorf was sentenced on April 8, 2011, and, when he did not timely initiate 

Rule 32 proceedings under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.4(a), his conviction 

Case 2:14-cv-00176-DJH Document 45 Filed 05/04/15 Page 4 of 7
- 5 - 

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 

became final on July 8, 2011. Thus, his one year clock for filing a habeas petition in this 

Court began on July 9, 2011, and ended on July 9, 2012. 

 Before July 9, 2012, Neuendorf had initiated two Rule 32 proceedings in Superior 

Court but these were both untimely. Because they were not “properly filed,” they did not 

toll any time for Section 2244(d)(2). Pace, 544 U.S. at 413 (no AEDPA tolling from 

untimely state post-conviction petitions). 

 Before July 9, 2012, Neuendorf had also filed a habeas petition in this Court. But 

this did not toll any time because “an application for federal habeas corpus review is not 

an ‘application for State post-conviction or other collateral review’ within the meaning of 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).” Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181 (2001). Moreover, 

Neuendorf’s first habeas petition was dismissed because he had not exhausted his state 

court remedies. This means that he cannot relate this habeas petition to his earlier habeas 

petition because a “second habeas petition does not relate back to a first habeas petition 

when the first habeas petition was dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.” 

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

 None of Neuendorf’s filings tolled any time and so his one year timeframe expired 

and, once expired, it could not be revived by subsequent filings. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 

544 U.S. 408, 413 (2005) (no AEDPA tolling from untimely state post-conviction 

petitions). Accordingly, his habeas petition, filed on January 30, 2014, was untimely. 

Neuendorf is Not Entitled to Equitable Tolling. 

 Neuendorf’s Petition is untimely unless he can show that he is entitled to equitable 

tolling. To make such a showing, Neuendorf must demonstrate both that he pursued his 

rights diligently and that some extraordinary circumstance prevented him from filing his 

petition. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010). 

 Neuendorf does not attempt to show either prong of this test. Instead, he argues 

that Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012), entitles him to file an untimely habeas 

petition. (Doc. 1 at 9, 11) This argument is unpersuasive because Martinez does not 

address the limitations bar in Section 2244(d)(2) and it does not excuse an untimely 

Case 2:14-cv-00176-DJH Document 45 Filed 05/04/15 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

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 

habeas petition. E.g., Madueno v. Ryan, 2014 WL 2094189, at *7 (D.Ariz. May 20, 

2014); Marshall v. Ryan, 2014 WL 710954, at *5 (D.Ariz. Feb. 25, 2014); Moreno v. 

Ryan, 2014 WL 24151, at *5 (D.Ariz. Jan. 2, 2014). 

 Neuendorf also seems to argue that his status as a pro se litigant entitles him to 

additional time. (Doc. 43) However, he is not entitled to equitable tolling because of his 

status as a pro se litigant, his lack of familiarity with the law, or the extent of his legal 

resources. Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (“a pro se petitioner’s 

lack of legal sophistication is not, by itself, an extraordinary circumstance warranting 

equitable tolling”). 

 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that John Calvin Neuendorf II’s 

petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because dismissal of the Petition 

is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the ruling 

debatable. 

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 fourteen 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(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, 

the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure 

timely to file objections to 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. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will 

be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an 

Case 2:14-cv-00176-DJH Document 45 Filed 05/04/15 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

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 

order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 

72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 Dated this 4th day of May, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-00176-DJH Document 45 Filed 05/04/15 Page 7 of 7