Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01363/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01363-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Patrice E. Brown, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Mark A. Bezy, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1363-PHX-GMS (JRI)

AMENDED ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Writ of Habeas Corpus of Petitioner, Patrice E.

Brown. (Dkt. # 1.) On March 27, 2008, Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin issued a Report and

Recommendation (“March 27 R & R”) recommending that the Petition be denied. (Dkt. #

15.) Petitioner timely filed objections. (Dkt. # 16.) The matter was remanded back to Judge

Irwin for a revised Report and Recommendation addressing Petitioner’s equitable tolling

objection. (Dkt. # 17.) On September 15, 2008, Judge Irwin issued a Supplemental Report

and Recommendation (“September 15 Supplemental R & R”), again recommending that the

Petition be denied. (Dkt. # 23.) Petitioner again filed objections. (Dkt. # 24.) For the

reasons below, the Court adopts both the March 27 R & R and the September 15

Supplemental R & R.

Case 2:07-cv-01363-GMS Document 30 Filed 10/23/08 Page 1 of 4
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 -

BACKGROUND

On November 20, 2000, Petitioner was found guilty of one count of child molestation,

three counts of sexual conduct with a minor, and two counts of sexual abuse. Petitioner was

sentenced to consecutive prison terms totaling seventy-seven years. The March 27 R & R

and September 15 R & R set forth the factual and procedural background of this case, to

which neither party objected. Accordingly, the Court adopts this background as an accurate

recital.

Petitioner asserts three grounds for relief in his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus:

(1) Petitioner’s trial counsel was ineffective in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth

Amendments; (2) Petitioner’s Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair trial

was violated when the prosecutors knowingly used perjured testimony to obtain his

conviction; and (3) Petitioner’s due process rights were violated when he received a harsher

sentence because he stated that he intended to appeal his conviction. (Dkt. # 1.) The

Magistrate Judge recommended that all three grounds be dismissed with prejudice. 

STANDARD

A “district judge may refer dispositive pretrial motions, and petitions for writ of

habeas corpus, to a magistrate, who shall conduct appropriate proceedings and recommend

dispositions.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 141 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B);

Estate of Connors v. O’Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9th Cir. 1993). Any party “may serve and

file written objections” to the R & R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “A judge of the court shall

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or

recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. A district judge “may accept, reject, or

Case 2:07-cv-01363-GMS Document 30 Filed 10/23/08 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” Id.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner’s objections to the March 27 R & R contained only one objection arguing

that he is entitled to equitable tolling to avoid the effect of his delinquent filing. This

objection was considered by the Magistrate Judge in the September 15 Supplemental R &

R. Petitioner’s objections to the September 15 Supplemental R & R again present the same

argument that “he is entitled to equitable tolling for the time after he became aware of the

denial of his ‘lost petition.’” (Dkt. # 24, at 1.) The Magistrate considered this argument:

Therefore, at best, Petitioner would be entitled to tolling for the

period from the expiration of his review time until he received

notice of the petition’s denial, i.e. from July 15, 2006[,] until

October 17, 2006. Or, more generously allowing for

Petitioner’s receipt of that advice, until October 27, 2006[,]

when he again wrote the Superior Court discussing the

information from the Court of Appeals.

(Dkt. # 23, at 3.) As explained, Petitioner only had approximately eighty-one days left in

which to file his federal habeas petition. Assuming that tolling is proper through October 27,

2006, Petitioner would have needed to file his petition prior to mid-January 2007. The

Petition was filed nearly six months after this time.

Petitioner maintains that he should be entitled to further equitable tolling based on the

argument that “Petitioner would not have been able to file a Writ of Habeas Corpus with the

Federal Court without transcripts and superior court records.” (Id.) The Court, however,

agrees with the analysis of the Magistrate on this matter. (See Dkt. # 23, at 4) (“[N]othing in

federal habeas law would require Petitioner to provide copies of his state petition, or proof

of its filing beyond the state court’s ruling, as a prerequisite to filing his federal petition.”);

Case 2:07-cv-01363-GMS Document 30 Filed 10/23/08 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(f) (“If the applicant, because of indigency or other reason is unable

to produce such part of the record, then the State shall produce such part of the record and

the Federal court shall direct the State to do so by order directed to an appropriate State

official.”). Because equitable tolling only applies “if extraordinary circumstances beyond

a prisoner’s control make it impossible to file a petition on time,” Calderon v. U.S. Dist.

Court for the Cent. Dist. Of Cal. (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th Cir. 1997), Petitioner

will not be granted tolling for the time he spend attempting to obtain misplaced records. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting the March 27, 2008, Report and

Recommendation (Dkt. # 15) and the September 15, 2008, Supplemental Report and

Recommendation (Dkt. # 23).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying and dismissing with prejudice Petitioner’s

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. # 1).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to terminate this

action.

DATED this 22nd day of October, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01363-GMS Document 30 Filed 10/23/08 Page 4 of 4