Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00239/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00239-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Marvin R. Swichtenberg, Jr., 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 06-239-PHX-ROS

ORDER

On January 19, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 1)

Respondents argued in their answer that the petition was not timely. (Doc. 7) Magistrate

Judge Bernardo P. Velasco informed Petitioner of the timeliness issue and gave him an

opportunity to present arguments regarding equitable tolling. (Doc. 9) Petitioner filed a

motion titled "Motion to Show Equitable Tolling." (Doc. 10) That filing, however,

addressed the merits of Petitioner's claims, not the timeliness issue.

On September 15, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation

("R&R") setting forth the history of Petitioner's underlying convictions and subsequent state

court proceedings. (Doc. 11) Based on that history, the Magistrate Judge concluded the

petition was untimely and recommended that the petition be dismissed. Petitioner filed

objections to the R&R. The objections, however, do not focus on the issue of timeliness.

Case 2:06-cv-00239-ROS Document 13 Filed 11/20/06 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 -

After a Magistrate Judge submits a R&R, the parties have ten days in which to file any

objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court is required to "make a de novo determination

of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which

objection is made." Id. After evaluating the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation, as well as the objections filed by either party, a district judge "may accept,

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

magistrate judge." Id. 

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's finding that the petition was not timely

filed. Petitioner's first Petition for Post-Conviction Relief in state court was denied on

September 25, 1997. Petitioner took no further action regarding his case until August 10,

2001 and did not file his federal petition until January 19, 2006. Because the statute of

limitations is one year, the petition is untimely absent a showing that equitable tolling should

apply. See Espinoza-Matthews v. California, 432 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2005)

("[E]quitable tolling of AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations is available in this Circuit

. . . ."). "A litigant seeking equitable tolling bears the burden of establishing two elements:

(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary

circumstance stood in his way." Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005). The

Magistrate Judge correctly concluded Petitioner did not establish either of these elements.

The petition will be dismissed.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) is ADOPTED and this

case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DATED this 20th day of November, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00239-ROS Document 13 Filed 11/20/06 Page 2 of 2