Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01555/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01555-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Abraham Barrera Moreno,

 Petitioner,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-01555-PHX-PGR (LOA)

 ORDER

 

 

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Anderson notwithstanding that no party has filed any objections to the Report

and Recommendation, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly

determined that the petitioner’s habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

should be dismissed as time-barred.

First, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the one-year statute of

limitations of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act began to run on

October 15, 2010 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1)(A), the date his judgment of

conviction became final, and that it expired on October 17, 2011, approximately nine

months before the petitioner filed this action on July 13, 2012. To the extent that the

petitioner argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct.

Case 2:12-cv-01555-PGR Document 16 Filed 01/02/14 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

- 2 -

1309 (2012), issued on March 20, 2012, delayed the start of the limitations period

pursuant to either 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C), which concerns newly recognized

constitutional rights made retroactive by the Supreme Court, or § 2244(d)(1)(D),

which concerns the discovery of the factual predicate of an alleged claim, the

Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Martinez has no applicability to this action

as it does not concern the timeliness of a habeas petition.

Second, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner is not

entitled to equitable tolling of the limitations period because he has not shown the

existence of any extraordinary circumstance that would justify such tolling, nor has

he shown that any external impediment frustrated the diligent pursuant of his claims.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 15) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. §

2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied and that

this action is dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue and

that the petitioner is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis because the dismissal

of the petitioner’s habeas petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of

reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 2nd day of January, 2014.

Case 2:12-cv-01555-PGR Document 16 Filed 01/02/14 Page 2 of 2