Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00985/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00985-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Talmade Laroy Hill,

 Petitioner,

vs.

Ron Creio, et al.,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-00985-PHX-PGR (LOA)

 ORDER

 

 

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Anderson in light of the petitioner’s document entitled “Timely Petition” (Doc.

18), which the Court construes as the petitioner’s objections to the Report and

Recommendation, the Court finds that the petitioner’s objections should be overruled

because the Magistrate Judge properly concluded that the petitioner’s habeas

petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be dismissed as time-barred.

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that since the AEDPA’s one-year

statute of limitations expired on September 22, 1999 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1)(A) and § 2244(d)(2), the petitioner’s habeas petition, which was not filed

until May 3, 2012, was untimely by more than 121⁄2 years. The Court further agrees

with the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner is not entitled to any equitable tolling of

Case 2:12-cv-00985-PGR Document 19 Filed 10/02/13 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

the limitations period because his only stated excuse for the untimely filing, which

is that he did not know that the AEDPA’s statute of limitations existed, is insufficient

to demonstrate that an extraordinary circumstance made it impossible for him to file

a timely petition. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 16) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. §

2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied and that

this action is dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue and

that the petitioner is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis because the dismissal

of the petitioner’s habeas petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of

reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 1st day of October, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-00985-PGR Document 19 Filed 10/02/13 Page 2 of 2