Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00674/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00674-0/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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph Nicholas Ligidakis, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-00674-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it Joseph Ligidakis’ petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. 1), respondents’ answer (doc. 7), and petitioner’s reply (doc. 17).

We also have before us the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge

recommending that the petition be denied (doc. 18). Petitioner did not object to the report

and recommendation.

A § 2254 petition is subject to a one-year limitation period under the Antiterrorism

and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). In this case,

the period began to run on February 15, 2007, when the time to seek direct review of

petitioner’s convictions by the Arizona Supreme Court expired. He filed his § 2254 petition

on March 25, 2010, over three years later. He fails to account for this delay.

Petitioner contends that statutory tolling applies during the pendency of his state

petition for post-conviction relief, which was filed on April 27, 2007, and denied by the trial

court as untimely on January 24, 2008. See id. § 2244(d)(2) (providing tolling during

pendency of a “properly filed” application for state collateral review). The Arizona Court

Case 2:10-cv-00674-FJM Document 21 Filed 12/15/10 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 -

of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court denied review of this decision on December 29,

2008, and May 5, 2009, respectively. Because petitioner’s state petition was untimely, it was

not properly filed for purposes of statutory tolling. Allen v. Siebert, 552 U.S. 3, 7, 128 S. Ct.

2, 4 (2007) (“When a postconviction petition is untimely under state law, that is the end of

the matter for purposes of § 2244(d)(2).”). Thus, statutory tolling is unavailable.

Petitioner also contends that equitable tolling is appropriate because he had difficulty

filing his state petition in 2007 and he received a memo from his lawyer on June 8, 2009,

indicating that he had until April 8, 2010, to file a federal habeas petition. To be entitled to

equitable tolling, a petitioner must show “(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently,

and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way.” Holland v. Florida, __ U.S.

__, __, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2562 (2010). Even if petitioner’s allegations were meritorious, he

fails to allege grounds for tolling the period of over one year between the expiration of the

AEDPA limitation period in February 2008 and his receipt of a memo in June 2009. We note

that this period followed the trial court’s denial of petitioner’s state petition as untimely in

January 2008, which gave him notice that he could not rely on statutory tolling. Because

petitioner fails to show diligence and extraordinary circumstances to justify equitably tolling

the AEDPA limitation period for more than two years, his petition is time-barred. We accept

the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Rule 8(b), Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases, and deny the petition.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED DENYING the petition for writ of habeas corpus

(doc. 1).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING a certificate of appealability because

denial of the petition is justified by a plain procedural bar, and jurists of reason would not

find the procedural ruling debatable.

DATED this 14th day of December, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00674-FJM Document 21 Filed 12/15/10 Page 2 of 2