Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01914/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01914-0/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

 Unless otherwise noted, all referenced exhibits are those attached to Respondent’s Answer

to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Steven Benjamin Pittman,

Petitioner,

v. 

Dora B. Schriro, 

Respondent. ______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 07-1914 PHX-MHM (JM)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Steven Benjamin Pittman’s Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus. (Docket No. 1). 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. Respondent filed her

answer on January 17, 2008. (Docket No. 9). Petitioner filed a reply on April 4, 2008

(Docket No. 13). As explained below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District

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

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 13, 1999, the State filed an indictment in Maricopa County Superior

Court charging Petitioner with one count of first degree murder, under the felony murder

doctrine, alleging that the murder occurred during the commission of a burglary. (Ex. A at

1).1

 On July 14, 2000, Petitioner was convicted (Ex. B) and on August 24, 2000, he was

sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of release for 25 years. (Ex. C at 11).

Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal on September 8, 2000. (Ex. D). On October

23, 2001 the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s conviction and sentence. (Ex.

Case 2:07-cv-01914-MHM Document 17 Filed 10/08/09 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

E at 36). On December 10, 2001, Petitioner filed a Petition for Review (Ex. F at 37-44) and

on September 24, 2002, the Arizona Supreme Court denied the Petition (Ex F at 45). 

A. Petition for Post-Conviction Relief

While the Petition to Review was still pending with the Arizona Supreme Court,

Petitioner constructively filed his Notice of Post-Conviction Relief in Maricopa County

Superior Court on February 25, 2002. (Ex. G). On November 8, 2002, Petitioner

constructively filed his Rule 32 Petition (Ex. L) and the Petition was dismissed on June 4,

2003. (Ex. R). Thereafter, Petitioner filed various motions for reconsideration (Ex. S, U, Y,

AA, DD, HH and LL). On December 6, 2004, the Petition was ultimately dismissed (Ex. OO)

and on that same date, Petitioner filed a Petition for Review in the Arizona Court of Appeals.

(Ex. PP). On February 21, 2005, Petitioner constructively filed a “Delayed Motion for

Reconsideration.” (Ex. RR). The pleading was treated by the Court of Appeals as a “petition

for review from the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief” and denied on November

8, 2005. (Ex. SS). Petitioner did not file a petition for review with the Arizona Supreme

Court on or before the due date of December 13, 2005, so the case was closed on December

27, 2005. (Ex. TT at 362). 

On October 3, 2006, Petitioner attempted to file a “Delayed Motion for

Reconsideration.” (Ex. TT). Finding that the Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibited the

filing of a motion for reconsideration of an order denying a petition for review, the Court of

Appeals ordered that the motion not be filed. (Id.).

B. The Pending 2254 Petition

On October 3, 2007, Petitioner filed the instant Petition which alleges the following

bases for relief:

Ground One: Trial Court erred in failing to give the jury a

correct statement of the law. But allowed the state to make a

misstatement of the law. Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments where violated. Also the Sixth amendment

violated. 

Ground Two: Indictment never being authorized by Grand

Juror, Incorrect Jury instruction. Fourth, Ninth, Tenth,

Case 2:07-cv-01914-MHM Document 17 Filed 10/08/09 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

amendments violated. Prosecution never used original evidence

at trial and didn’t disclose all evidence to court and defense.

Ground Three: Falsified Document’s [sic], Perjury by arresting

officer violating of due process, amended indictment never

giving by Grand Jury. Fourth, 5th 6th amendment’s violated.

Ground Four: Not being placed on notice and denied hearing

on Indictment the State amending and serving a indictment to

defendant a year without indictment being from Grand Jury.

The Trial Court allowed dismissal of panel by the state who

expressed that they’ll only convict shooter this left 13 jurors

who didn’t raise hand. Fourth, Fifth, Sixth amendments were

violated. 

(Docket No. 1.)

II. LEGAL DISCUSSION

A. The petition is not timely under the AEDPA.

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(c)(3). A petition for

writ of habeas corpus must be filed within the one-year statute of limitations set forth in the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d)(1). The one

year limitations period begins to run from the date the judgment of conviction became final

in state court or the expiration of the time available to seek direct review. 28 U.S.C. §

2241(d)(1)(A). When a petitioner challenges a state court conviction based on a federal

question, then the process of direct review includes the 90 days during which a person can

file a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. Bowen v. Roe, 188 F3d

1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999). The running of the one-year limitations period is tolled during

the time which a properly filed application for post-conviction relief or other collateral

review is pending in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). 

Here, the Arizona Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s Petition to Review on September

24, 2002. His conviction became final 90 days later, on December 23, 2002. Absent tolling,

Petitioner was required to file his federal habeas petition on or before December 23, 2003.

 The limitations period, however, was tolled from February 25, 2002, the day Petitioner filed

his Notice of Post-Conviction Relief in Maricopa County Superior Court, until November

Case 2:07-cv-01914-MHM Document 17 Filed 10/08/09 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

4

8, 2005, the day the Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s petition for review from the trial

court’s denial of post-conviction relief. The one year limitations period expired a year later,

on November 8, 2006 and Petitioner filed this Petition on October 3, 2007, 329 days after

the limitations period expired. Thus, the instant petition is untimely, unless Petitioner can

establish equitable tolling.

B. The petition does not qualify for equitable tolling.

The Ninth Circuit has recognized that the AEDPA’s statute of limitations is subject

to equitable tolling. Roy v. Lampert, 465 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2006). Equitable tolling is

applicable only when “extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner’s control make it

impossible to file a petition on time.” Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir.

2002). Equitable tolling is justified in few cases: “the threshold necessary to trigger

equitable tolling [under the AEDPA] is very high, lest the exceptions swallow the rule." Id.

Here, Petitioner does not challenge Respondent’s assertion that his habeas petition

was not timely filed. He does explain, however, that his Petition was not timely because he

was a layman of the law and could not understand “this quote and time frame thing.” (Docket

1 at 11.) The “quote and time frame thing” he refers to is item 16 of his Petition where he

is asked to explain why the one-year statute of limitations should not bar the petition he filed

more than a year after his judgment of conviction became final. (Id.) In his Reply,

Petitioner again refers to himself as a layman of the law and not being represented by

counsel. (Docket 13). 

The Ninth Circuit has held that a petitioner’s lack of legal sophistication is not, by

itself, an extraordinary measure warranting equitable tolling. Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d

1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (Raspberry was unable to correctly calculate a limitations period.)

Other circuits have made similar findings. See United States v. Sosa, 364 F.3d 507, 512 (4th

Cir. 2004) (Ignorance of the law is not a basis for equitable tolling, even in the case of an

unrepresented prisoner.); Accord Felder v. Johson, 204 F.3d 168, 171-72 n. 10 (5th Cir.

2000); and Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d. 1217, 1220 (10th Cir.2000). As such, Petitioner is not

Case 2:07-cv-01914-MHM Document 17 Filed 10/08/09 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

entitled to statutory or equitable tolling and his habeas petition must be dismissed because

it is time-barred.

III. RECOMMENDATION

For all of the above reasons, THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE RECOMMENDS that

the District Court, after its independent review, DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE Petitioner’s

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed October 5, 2007 [Docket No. 1].

This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment.

However, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of service of a copy of this

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the District Court. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b) and 6(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to the objections.

If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV 07-1914-PHXMHM.. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the

Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo consideration of

the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en

banc).DATED this 8th day of October, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-01914-MHM Document 17 Filed 10/08/09 Page 5 of 5