Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02287/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02287-1/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Anthony St. Clair Sealy, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-2287-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1),

respondents’ answer (doc. 8), and petitioner’s reply (doc. 9). We also have before us the

report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. 10), and petitioner’s

objection (doc. 11). After de novo consideration of the issues, we accept the recommended

decision of the United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to Rule 8(b), Rules Governing §

2254 Cases, and deny the petition as untimely. 

Petitioner was charged in a sixteen-count indictment with attempted sexual conduct

with a minor, sexual conduct with a minor, public sexual indecency, sexual abuse,

molestation of a child, and attempted sexual molestation of a child involving three separate

victims. He pled guilty to one count of sexual conduct with a minor under the age of 15 and

two counts of attempted sexual conduct with a minor under the age of 15. He was

subsequently sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment and lifetime probation. It is

Case 2:08-cv-02287-FJM Document 12 Filed 05/18/09 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 -

undisputed that the present habeas petition is untimely under the one-year statute of

limitations set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Petitioner argues that equitable tolling applies to his otherwise untimely

claims because he was not informed of AEDPA’s time limitations. 

We agree with the Magistrate Judge that petitioner has not demonstrated either

diligent pursuit of his rights or extraordinary circumstances preventing him from filing a

timely petition. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418, 125 S. Ct. 1807, 1814 (2005).

Neither a petitioner’s pro se status, nor his ignorance of the law, constitutes an extraordinary

circumstance warranting equitable tolling. Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir.

2006). Therefore, we accept the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that petitioner’s petition for

writ of habeas corpus is untimely and that he has failed to demonstrate entitlement to

equitable tolling.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING the petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1). 

DATED this 15h

 day of May, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02287-FJM Document 12 Filed 05/18/09 Page 2 of 2