Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00088/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00088-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Hector Jesus Espinoza-Beltran, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al, 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-088-TUC-FRZ 

ORDER

Before the Court for consideration is the First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Petitioner Hector Jesus Espinoza-Beltran and

the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, recommending that this Court

issue an Order denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Glenda E. Edmonds pursuant to Rules

72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings and report and

recommendation.

Magistrate Judge Edmonds issued her Report and Recommendation, recommending

that the District Court, after its independent review of the record, enter an order dismissing

the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as time barred.

As set forth in detail in the Report and Recommendation, the limitation period for all

of Espinoza-Beltran’s claims commenced on September 18, 2001, “the date on which the

judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for

seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The one-year period expired on

Case 4:11-cv-00088-FRZ Document 17 Filed 04/12/12 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 -

September 18, 2002. Espinoza-Beltran did not filed his federal petition for habeas relief until

January 28, 2011. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Edmonds properly concluded this present

action is time barred.

The Report and Recommendation also advised that any party may serve and file

written objections within 14 days of being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b), and that, if objections are not timely filed,

they may be deemed waived. No objections were filed.

The Court finds, after consideration of the matters presented and an independent

review of the record herein, that the Petition should be denied as time barred and this action

be dismissed as recommended. 

In the event of an appeal, the Court finds that Petitioner has failed to make the

requisite showing necessary to justify the issuance of a certificate of appealability. A

certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “[A] substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right . . . includes showing that reasonable jurists could debate

whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues

presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1603-04 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S.

880, 893 n.4, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3395 n.4 (1983)). See also Turner v. Calderon, 281 F.3d 851,

865 (9th Cir. 2002). “When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds

without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a [certificate of

appealability] should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find

it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and

that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its

procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484; 120 S.Ct 1604. Such has not been presented.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) is hereby

ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law; 

Case 4:11-cv-00088-FRZ Document 17 Filed 04/12/12 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petitioner for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(Doc. 6) is DENIED; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Amend/Correct Answer to Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 14) is GRANTED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event of an appeal, the Court finds there are

no issues “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further” and thus, no certificate of

appealability shall issue;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment be entered accordingly. 

DATED this 12th day of April, 2012.

Case 4:11-cv-00088-FRZ Document 17 Filed 04/12/12 Page 3 of 3