Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00285/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00285-0/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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Michael A. Fuller, 

 Petitioner, 

vs. 

Chuck Ryan, et al., 

 Respondents. 

 CV09-0285-TUC-DCB (JR) 

 REPORT AND 

 RECOMMENDATION 

 

 

 Pending before the Court is Michael A. Fuller’s Amended Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In accordance with the 

Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona and 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge for report and 

recommendation. As explained below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the 

District Court, after an independent review of the record, dismiss the Petition with 

prejudice. 

Case 4:09-cv-00285-DCB Document 17 Filed 02/11/13 Page 1 of 6
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

I. BACKGROUND 

 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Fuller was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor 

and sexual conduct with a minor. Answer, Ex. A. On May 21, 2007, the trial court 

sentenced him to a mitigated, 2.5-year prison term on the sexual abuse charge and a 

consecutive, presumptive ten-year term on the sexual conduct charge. Id., Ex. B. 

 On July 16, 2007, Fuller filed a notice of post-conviction relief pursuant to 

Rule 32, Ariz.R.Crim.P. Id., Ex. C. Fuller’s counsel thereafter filed a notice of 

review pursuant to Rule 32.4(c)(2), informing the court she found no colorable claim 

to raise. Id., Ex. D. The court granted Fuller leave to file his own petition for postconviction relief within forty-five days and, when he failed to do so, dismissed the 

proceeding on December 5, 2007. Id., Ex. E. 

 A week later, on December 12, 2007, Fuller filed another notice of postconviction relief. Id., Ex. G. The trial court appointed new counsel, who filed 

Fuller’s second petition for post-conviction relief on March 3, 2008, raising three 

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Id., Ex. I. Following a status conference, 

the trial court summarily dismissed the petition without explanation. Id., Ex. K. 

 On July 14, 2008, Fuller appealed the trial court’s dismissal of his petition 

claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in doing so. Id., Ex. L. The Arizona 

Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion, “because Fuller is precluded from 

seeking relief on this ground in this successive post-conviction proceeding.” Id., Ex. 

M, p. 3 (citing Ariz.R.Crim.P. 32.2(a)(3)). The court then proceeded to analyze the 

Case 4:09-cv-00285-DCB Document 17 Filed 02/11/13 Page 2 of 6
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

claims anyway and stated that “even assuming his claims were not precluded, the 

record supports a finding that Fuller’s trial counsel acted effectively.” Id. 

 On January 5, 2009, Fuller petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for review. 

Id., Ex. N. By Order filed on April 10, 2009, the Supreme Court denied review 

without comment. Id., Ex. O. 

 Fuller commenced the current case on May 18, 2009 (Doc. 1). After it was 

dismissed without prejudice, Fuller filed an amended petition on March 19, 2010, 

raising two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing (Doc. 9). 

II. LEGAL DISCUSSION 

 A. The Petition is untimely.

 The Respondents contend that Fuller’s petition is untimely. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) provides for a one 

year statute of limitations to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 

2244(d)(1). Petitions filed beyond the one-year limitations period must be dismissed. 

Id. 

 The one-year statute of limitations on habeas corpus petitions generally begins 

to run on “the date on which the judgment became final by conclusion of direct 

review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review. 28 U.S.C. § 

2244(d)(1)(A). In Arizona, the opportunity for direct review includes postconviction relief proceedings filed under Rule 32, Ariz.R.Crim.P. “Arizona’s Rule 

32 of-right proceeding for plea-convicted defendants is a form of direct review within 

the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).” Summers v. Schriro, 481 F.3d 710, 717 

Case 4:09-cv-00285-DCB Document 17 Filed 02/11/13 Page 3 of 6
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

(9th Cir. 2007). The limitations period is tolled during the pendency of a properly 

filed state post-conviction proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 

544 U.S. 408, 417 (2005). 

 In this case, Fuller filed his first notice of post-conviction relief on July 16, 

2007. His counsel subsequently determined that there were no colorable claims for 

relief to be presented. Then, by order dated October 3, 2007, the trial court ordered 

that Fuller’s counsel provide Fuller “the entire Post Conviction Relief (PCR record) 

that counsel has received from the Court to date,” and granted Fuller an additional 45 

days from the receipt of the file to file a pro per petition for relief. Answer, Ex. E. 

The trial court also warned that “[i]f no petition is filed, the proceedings shall be 

dismissed.” Id. Not having received the petition, the trial court dismissed Fuller’s 

notice of post-conviction relief on December 5, 2007. Id., Ex. F. 

 Thus, as of December 5, 2007, the AEDPA limitations period began to run as 

there was no post-conviction proceeding pending. Pace, 544 U.S. at 417. However, 

Petitioner contends that the period was tolled with the filing of his second notice of 

post-conviction relief on December 12, 2007. However, that petition was summarily 

dismissed by the trial court, Answer, Ex. K, and subsequently found by the Arizona 

Court of Appeals to be precluded under Rule 32.2(a)(3)), Ariz.R.Crim.P., as a 

successive post-conviction proceeding. Answer, Ex. M, p. 3. As the second petition 

was not properly filed, Fuller is not entitled to tolling for the period his second postconviction action was pending in the state courts. See Pace, 544 U.S. at 410 (holding 

that untimely state post-conviction petition is not “properly filed” within the meaning 

Case 4:09-cv-00285-DCB Document 17 Filed 02/11/13 Page 4 of 6
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

of § 2244(d)(2)). Thus, the one-year limitations period began to run on December 5, 

2007, and expired well before the original petition was filed in the instant matter on 

May 18, 2009. 

B. Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling. 

 The United States Supreme Court has determined that “§ 2244(d) is subject to 

equitable tolling in appropriate cases.” Holland v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2560 

(2010). However, it is available only when “extraordinary circumstances beyond a 

prisoner’s control make it impossible to file a petition on time” and “the 

extraordinary circumstances were the cause of his untimeliness.” Laws v. Lamarque, 

351 F.3d 919, 922 (9th Cir. 2003). “Indeed, ‘the threshold necessary to trigger 

equitable tolling is very high, lest the exceptions swallow the rule.” Miranda v. 

Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Marcello, 212 

F.3d 1005, 1010 (7th Cir. 2000)). 

 In his Reply, Fuller asserts that the dismissal of his second post-conviction 

petition by the Arizona Court of Appeals was because “again my state appointed 

counsel fell below the standard of care [and] this also was not in my control.” Reply, 

p. 3. However, in Holland the Supreme Court reiterated that “a garden variety 

claim” of attorney negligence would not justify equitable tolling. 130 S.Ct. at 2554. 

Equitable tolling is available only where attorney misconduct is sufficiently 

egregious to meet the “extraordinary circumstances” standard. Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 

F.3d 796, 801 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, Fuller offers nothing indicating who his counsel 

was or how his counsel fell below the standard of care. 

Case 4:09-cv-00285-DCB Document 17 Filed 02/11/13 Page 5 of 6
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

 Moreover, the record reflects that Fuller did not exercise due diligence. Fuller 

does not dispute that after counsel informed the trial court that she could locate no 

colorable claims for relief, the trial court gave him directions that he was required to 

file a brief on his own behalf within 45 days of receiving his PCR file from counsel. 

Despite these specific instructions, Fuller did nothing. He neither filed the ordered 

brief, nor requested an extension. In fact, he has provided no evidence that he did 

anything at all. Thus, the Court finds no basis for equitable tolling. 

III. RECOMMENDATION 

 For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District 

Court, after its independent review, dismiss with prejudice Petitioner’s Amended 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 9). 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), any party may serve and 

file written objections within 14 days of being served with a copy of this Report and 

Recommendation. If objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. 

The parties are advised that any objections filed are to be identified with the 

following case number: 09-CV-00285-TUC-DCB. 

 Dated this 11th day of February, 2013. 

 

Case 4:09-cv-00285-DCB Document 17 Filed 02/11/13 Page 6 of 6