Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01652/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01652-0/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 1

 Clerk’s record number.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jeffrey Louis Wadsworth, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro; et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-1652-PHX-ROS (GEE)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On June 29, 2006, Jeffrey Louis Wadsworth, an inmate currently confined in the Arizona

State Prison Complex in Florence, AZ, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254. (Petition.); [#1]1

 Before the court are

the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the respondents’ Answer, Wadsworth’s Reply, and the

respondents’ Supplemental Answer.

Pursuant to the Rules of Practice of this Court, this matter was referred to Magistrate

Judge Edmonds for report and recommendation. The Magistrate Judge recommends the District

Court, after its independent review of the record, enter an order dismissing the Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus. It is time-barred.

//

//

Case 2:06-cv-01652-ROS Document 12 Filed 12/27/06 Page 1 of 5
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 -

Summary of the Case

On February 2, 2001, Wadsworth pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one

count of manslaughter and one count of aggravated assault in Maricopa County Superior Court.

(Respondents’ Answer, p. 2.) On March 15, 2001, the trial court sentenced Wadsworth to

concurrent sentences of 15 and 6 years’ imprisonment respectively. Id. 

Wadsworth did not file a direct appeal apparently because counsel advised him that he

waived this right by pleading guilty. See (Petition, p. 8.); ARIZ.R.CRIM.P. 17.1(e).

On June 4, 2001, Wadsworth filed notice of post-conviction relief. Id. When postconviction relief counsel informed the trial court she could find no colorable issues, the trial

court extended the deadline to allow Wadsworth an opportunity to file a petition pro se. Id.,

Exhibit H. Wadsworth did not file a petition, however, and the trial court dismissed the

proceeding on December 20, 2002. Id.

On August 12, 2004, Wadsworth filed a second notice of post-conviction relief claiming

his sentence was unconstitutional pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).

(Respondents’ Answer, p. 2.) The trial court dismissed the petition on August 27, 2004. Id.

Wadsworth’s petition for review was denied by the Arizona Court of Appeals on August 10,

2005. (Respondents’ Supplemental Answer, Exhibit A.) The Arizona Supreme Court denied

review on April 14, 2006. Id., Exhibit B.

 On June 29, 2006, Wadsworth filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in

U.S. District Court. He claims his trial counsel, appellate counsel and counsel handling his first

petition for post-conviction relief were all ineffective. He further claims the trial court erred by

considering stale felony priors. 

In their Answer, the respondents argue the petition is time-barred. They further argue

Wadsworth’s claims were not exhausted and are now procedurally defaulted.

 The petition should be dismissed; it is time-barred. The court does not reach the

respondents’ exhaustion argument.

 

Case 2:06-cv-01652-ROS Document 12 Filed 12/27/06 Page 2 of 5
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 -

Discussion

The writ of habeas corpus affords relief to persons in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition for writ

of habeas corpus must be filed within the applicable statute of limitations, or it will be

dismissed. Id. The statute of limitations reads in pertinent part as follows:

 (1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of

habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State

court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of--

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of

direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created

by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the

United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing

by such State action;

 * * *

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims

presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due

diligence. 

(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State

post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent

judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of

limitation under this subsection.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

Wadsworth claims his trial counsel, appellate counsel, and counsel handling his first

petition for post-conviction relief were all ineffective. According to Wadsworth, trial counsel

performed inadequate investigation, appellate counsel gave inaccurate information about

waiver, and post-conviction relief counsel failed to find any appealable issues. He further

claims the trial court erred by considering stale felony priors. These claims became ripe at

different times. Nevertheless, the court need analyze only the last claim to arise – the

Case 2:06-cv-01652-ROS Document 12 Filed 12/27/06 Page 3 of 5
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

 The court assumes arguendo that this claim is cognizable on habeas corpus. But see, Ortiz

v. Stewart, 149 F.3d 923, 939 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1123 (1999); Franzen v. Brinkman,

877 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1012 (1989). 

- 4 -

ineffective assistance of post-conviction relief counsel. If this claim is not timely, none of the

claims are timely.2

 

Wadsworth claims his post-conviction relief counsel was ineffective when she failed to

find any appealable issues. The statute of limitations for this claim is triggered on the date “the

factual predicate of the claim . . . could have been discovered through the exercise of due

diligence.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1)(D). In the absence of any allegations to the contrary,

the court may assume this date was December 20, 2002 – the date Wadsworth’s first petition

for post-conviction relief was denied by the trial court. The limitation period began to run the

next day and expired on December 22, 2003. Id. (The anniversary date, December 20, 2003,

is a Saturday, so the limitation period expired on the next Monday. FED.R.CIV.P. 6(a).) 

 The limitation period was not renewed when Wadsworth filed his second petition for

post-conviction relief on August 12, 2004. Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir.

2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 924 (2003). The instant petition was filed on June 29, 2006. It

is time-barred and should be dismissed. 

Wadsworth argues generally that the ineffective performance of his counsel constituted

an “impediment to filing” citing section 2244(d)(1)(B). He maintains his counsel gave deficient

advice about his right to file a direct appeal and about the issues that may properly be raised in

a petition for post-conviction relief. It is therefore possible that counsel formed an impediment

to his pursuing state remedies. Wadsworth does not, however, argue counsel mislead him as

to his federal remedies. Accordingly, counsel’s performance did not constitute an “impediment

to filing” as the term is used in section 2244(d)(1)(B). This section therefore does not apply to

the instant case.

Wadsworth further argues the habeas corpus statute of limitations unconstitutionally

limits the power of the courts. Ninth Circuit precedent holds it does not. Ferguson v.

Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 822-23 (9th Cir. 2003).

Case 2:06-cv-01652-ROS Document 12 Filed 12/27/06 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

RECOMMENDATION

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review

of the record, enter an order DISMISSING the petition as time-barred. [#1]

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b), any party may serve and file written objections within

10 days of being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. If objections are not

timely filed, the right to de novo review may be deemed waived. 

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this report and recommendation to the petitioner

and the respondents.

DATED this 27th day of December, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01652-ROS Document 12 Filed 12/27/06 Page 5 of 5