Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01967/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01967-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Derek C. Watkins,

 Petitioner,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1967-PHX-PGR (DKD)

 

 ORDER

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Duncan notwithstanding that no party has filed any objections to the

Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly

concluded that the petitioner’s habeas corpus petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254, should be denied as time-barred as it was filed, at the very least under

any calculation of possible statutory tolling, more than four years after the

expiration of the one-year limitations period of the AEDPA. The Court further

agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner is not entitled to have the

limitations period equitably tolled because he has not shown that he pursued his

rights with reasonable diligence or that some extraordinary circumstance stood in

his way and prevented the timely filing of his federal habeas petition. Holland v.

Case 2:09-cv-01967-PGR Document 14 Filed 07/15/10 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

1

 The Court notes that it delayed the issuance of this Order pending the

Supreme Court’s decision in Holland v. Florida given that the main issue to be

decided by the Supreme Court in that case was whether the AEDPA’s limitations

period was subject to the doctrine of equitable tolling.

- 2 -

Florida, U.S. , S.Ct. , 2010 WL 2346549, at *12 (June 14, 2010).1

Therefore,

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

(Doc. 13) 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 as

time-barred and that this action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the

Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

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

DATED this 14th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01967-PGR Document 14 Filed 07/15/10 Page 2 of 2