Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01155/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01155-1/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 1

Because the habeas petition was not timely filed, the Court cannot

resolve the merits of the petition.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ta Yoat Ni,

 Petitioner,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-13-01155-PHX-PGR (FJM)

 ORDER

 

 

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus of Magistrate Judge Metcalf in light of the petitioner’s timely filed

Objection to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation to Habeas Corpus Petition

(Doc. 15), the Court finds that the petitioner’s habeas corpus petition, filed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred because it

was filed several years after the expiration of the AEDPA’s one-year statute of

limitations.1

The Court concludes that the limitations period was statutorily tolled only

through August 7, 2007, the date the state trial court denied the petitioner’s PostCase 2:13-cv-01155-PGR Document 16 Filed 06/09/14 Page 1 of 3
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

The petitioner did not appeal the state trial court’s denial of his PCR

petition or its denial of his Motion of Notice for Reconsideration, nor did he fairly

present any of his federal habeas claims to the state courts, and he is now

procedurally precluded under Arizona law from doing so. Thus, even if the habeas

petition could be found to have been timely filed, the Court would still have to

dismiss it without reaching its merits because the petitioner procedurally defaulted

on all of his federal claims raised in his habeas petition and has not shown either the

required cause and prejudice for his default or a fundamental miscarriage of justice

sufficient to excuse his default. Furthermore, he makes no claim of actual

innocence.

- 2 -

Conviction Relief (“PCR”) petition, giving the petitioner until August 30, 2008 in which

to file a timely § 2254 petition. His pending petition was not filed, however, until

June 7, 2013 (or June 5, 2013, at the earliest, using the mail-box rule).

The Court rejects the petitioner’s argument in his Objection that his habeas

petition is timely because he is entitled to have the time period between August 7,

2007 and August 21, 2012 statutorily tolled on the ground that his PCR petition was

pending before the state trial court for that entire period. The petitioner’s argument

is based on his contention that he did not receive a copy of the 2007 denial of his

PCR petition until December 8, 2010, that he then filed on January 3, 2011 a Motion

of Notice of Reconsideration Re: From the Denial of Petition for Post-Conviction

Relief, and an Extension of 30 Days in Which to File [a motion for reconsideration],

followed by a substantive Motion for Reconsideration filed on January 20, 2011, and

that the state trial court did not deny his Motion of Notice for Reconsideration until

August 21, 2012.2

 The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that this time period

cannot be tolled as a continuation of the PCR petition because the state trial court

denied the Motion of Notice of Reconsideration as untimely, without ever reaching

the merits of the petitioner’s subsequent Motion for Reconsideration.

The Court further agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner has not

Case 2:13-cv-01155-PGR Document 16 Filed 06/09/14 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

established that he is entitled to any equitable tolling. Even if the Court accepts the

plaintiff’s contention that he did not receive notice of the 2007 denial of his PCR

petition until sometime in December, 2010, he has not demonstrated that he is

entitled to the equitable tolling necessary to make his habeas petition timely. What

the petitioner has not shown is any casual connection between the delayed notice

of his PCR denial and any inability on his part to timely file a habeas petition given

that he could have timely filed a protective habeas petition and then asked to have

it stayed pending his inquiry into the status of his PCR petition and his belated

attempt to exhaust his state remedies, as noted by the Supreme Court in Pace v.

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416 (2005). Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 12) 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 as timebarred and that this action is dismissed with prejudice.

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

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

reason would neither find it debatable whether the petitioner has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right nor whether the Court is correct in its

procedural ruling.

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

accordingly.

DATED this 9th day of June, 2014.

Case 2:13-cv-01155-PGR Document 16 Filed 06/09/14 Page 3 of 3