Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02284/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02284-1/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 

Shane Avington, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-02284-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge 

Bridget S. Bade, (Doc. 26), regarding Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, (Doc. 1). Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus 

challenges Petitioner’s convictions in two different cases in Maricopa County Superior 

Court, CR 2005-121081-001-SE (the “Connolly case”) and CR 2005-034814-001-SE (the 

“Dunbar case”). The R&R recommends that the petition be denied and dismissed with 

prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file 

objections to the R&R. (Doc. 26 at 32-33 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)).) Petitioner filed 

objections on October 13, 2015. (Doc. 27.) 

The R&R found that the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s 

(“AEDPA”) one-year statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), had expired as to all 

claims in both cases. In his objections, (Doc. 27), Petitioner argues that the statute of 

limitations should be equitably tolled under the actual innocence exception, which 

requires a petitioner to “show that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror 

Case 2:14-cv-02284-DLR Document 29 Filed 12/22/15 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

would have convicted him in the light of the new evidence.” Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 

298, 316 (1995). In support, Petitioner submitted the affidavit of Lottie Connolly, (Doc. 

24 at 3-4; Doc. 27 at 17-20). Regarding the Connolly case, the credibility of Connolly’s 

affidavit is called into question because of her relationship with Petitioner, her prior 

felony convictions, and her prior inconsistent statement. At trial, two unimpeached 

witnesses testified about the assault, as well as the police officers who took Connolly’s 

statement and photos of her injuries. The Connolly affidavit does not support a finding 

that no reasonable juror would have convicted Petitioner, and is therefore insufficient to 

establish the actual innocence exception in the Connolly case. 

The result is no different in the Dunbar case. In that case, two officers testified 

that Connolly’s statements to them, like the statements in her affidavit, were that her 

boyfriend, not Petitioner, had beaten Dunbar. Additionally, Petitioner’s fiancée testified 

at trial that Petitioner was with her in California at the time of the events. The Connolly 

affidavit repeats this same evidence, which the jury considered and rejected. Not only is 

the Connolly affidavit cumulative, it does not meet the Schlup standard. The victim and 

two neighbors positively identified the Petitioner as the assailant. Therefore, Petitioner 

has failed to establish that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have 

convicted him in the Dunbar case. 

In conclusion, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determination that the 

limitations period has run on both the Connolly and Dunbar cases. Petitioner has not 

established a basis to toll the statute of limitations on any claim in either case. The Court 

also declines to issue a certificate of appealability because the dismissal is based on a 

plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists could not dispute the resolution of this matter. 

See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Nor is Petitioner entitled to appeal in 

forma pauperis because any appeal would not be taken in good faith given the Court’s 

decision. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). 

Case 2:14-cv-02284-DLR Document 29 Filed 12/22/15 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

27 

28 

IT IS ORDERED that the R&R, (Doc. 26), is ACCEPTED, and Petitioner’s 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Doc. 1), is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER 

ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue and that Petitioner is not 

authorized to appeal in forma pauperis. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

Dated this 22nd day of December, 2015. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-02284-DLR Document 29 Filed 12/22/15 Page 3 of 3