Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00098/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00098-1/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

Melvin G. Ross, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-0098-PHX-DGC (VAM)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner Ross’s petition for writ of habeas corpus

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and United States Magistrate Judge Virginia A. Mathis’s

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Docs. ##1, 20. The R&R recommends t hat the

Court deny the petition because it is barred by the statute of limitations. Doc. #20 at 8. 

Discussion

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) establishes a one-year statue of limitation for federal habeas

claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) provides for the tolling of the limit at ions period for "[t]he

time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral

review is pending." In this case, Petitioner claims that he filed a petition for postconviction relief on May 25, 2002. Respondents deny any such relief was sought, and

there is no documentation in the record supporting Petitioner's claim. Docs. #1, 14, Ex. F.

 Because Petitioner’s conviction occurred in April of 1999, he filed no application for st at e

Case 2:05-cv-00098-DGC Document 31 Filed 12/19/05 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

27

28

- 2 -

post -conviction relief or collateral review, and this Petition was not filed until 2005, this

Petition is clearly untimely, and must be denied. 

Even if the Court accepted Petitioner's assertion that he filed a notice for postconviction relief on September 15, 2000, his appeal would be untimely. As explained in t he

R&R, Rule 32 gives the p et it ioner 90 days from the entry of judgment to file a claim for

relief. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4; Doc. # 20. T he final judgment and sentence was rendered on

April 22, 1999. Doc. #20. Petitioner therefore had until approximat ely July 22, 1999, to

commence a timely Rule 32 proceeding, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4, and the one-year

limitations period ended on approximately July, 22, 2000. See U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

Petitioner’s alleged notice for post-convict ion relief, filed on September 15, 2000, would

therefore have been filed after the one-year limitations period had elap sed and his claim

remains untimely, barred by the statute of limitations. Doc. #1 at 2.

Petitioner argues cryptically in his objection to the R&R that the statute of

limitations should be equitably tolled due to the presence of extraordinary circumstances

(Doc. #24 at 4), but he provides no explanation for this argument. On Sep t ember 12, 2005,

Petitioner filed a motion to amend his objections to the R&R. (Docs. ##25, 28.) Although

the motion asserts a variety of legal arguments, none of them address the Magistrate

Judge’s decision or the application of the one-year statute of limitations. 

The Court will accept the R&R and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)

(stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Virginia A. Mathis's R&R (Doc. #20) is accepted..

2. Petitioner Ross’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. #1) is denied.

3. Petitioner's Mot ion to Request Documents without Cost (Doc. #22) and

Pet it ioner's request that the Clerk of the Court file and serve documents (Doc.

#22) are denied.

Case 2:05-cv-00098-DGC Document 31 Filed 12/19/05 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

27

28

- 3 -

4. Petitioner's application to proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #23) is denied as

moot.

5. Petitioner's Petit ion for an Evidentiary Hearing to the R&R (Doc. #24) is

denied.

6. Petitioner's M ot ion t o Amend the Objections to the R&R (Doc. #25) is

granted.

7. Petitioner's Motion by Leave of t he Court to Request Counsel Representation

(Doc. # 26) is denied as moot.

8. Petitioner's Mot ion by Leave of the Court to Request Discovery (Doc. #27)

is denied.

9. Pet itioner's Motion by Leave of the Court to Amend the Objections to t he

R&R (Doc. #28) is granted. 

10. Petitioner's Motion by Leave of the Court to Request all Copies of all Legal

documents filed in this Court is denied as moot.

11. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

DATED this 19th day of December, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-00098-DGC Document 31 Filed 12/19/05 Page 3 of 3