Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01988/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01988-1/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

David Richard Halliburton, II, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Ivan Bartos and Arizona Attorney General,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-1988-PHX-MHM (MEA)

ORDER

Petitioner has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. §

2254. (Dkt.# 1). The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey who has issued

a Report and Recommendation that recommends that the Petition be denied as untimely.

(Dkt.#7). Petitioner has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court must review the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations

de novo if objection is made but not otherwise. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)("[a] judge of the court shall

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings

or recommendations to which objection is made"). "Failure to object to a magistrate judge's

recommendation waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact." Jones v. Wood, 207

F.3d 557, 562 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Case 2:05-cv-01988-MHM Document 14 Filed 08/29/06 Page 1 of 4
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 -

DISCUSSION

The Court has considered the pleadings and documents of record in this case. On July

18, 2001 Petitioner entered into a plea agreement in Arizona Superior Court to which he plead

guilty to the charges of attempted fraudulent schemes and artifices, a class 3 felony.

Petitioner was sentenced to a term of 10 years of imprisonment on August 31, 2001.

(Respondents' Answer, Exhibit G & H). 

On September 17, 2001 Petitioner filed a notice of post-conviction relief in the state

trial court pursuant to Rule 32, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Id., Exhibit I).

Petitioner filed his pro se petition for post-conviction relief in the Arizona Superior Court on

March 27, 2002. (Id., Exhibit L). The trial court dismissed Petitioner's Rule 32 action on June

4, 2002. (Id., Exhibit M). Petitioner sought review to the Arizona Court of Appeals which

denied review on July 25, 2003. (Id., Exhibit N). Petitioner claims to have sought review to

the Arizona Supreme Court; however, no such petition was filed. Specifically, Petitioner

claims that the petition to the Arizona Supreme Court was mailed to a friend to file but

somehow the petition was lost. (Dkt.#11, Petitioner's Affidavit in Support of Motion to

Compel). On August 7, 2004, Petitioner filed a "Motion to Stipulate to Presumptive

Sentence" in the Arizona trial court. (Respondents' Answer, Exhibit O). The trial court

construed the motion as a notice of post-conviction relief. (Id., Exhibit P). The Arizona trial

court dismissed the action as untimely on September 9, 2004. (Id). The Arizona Court of

Appeals denied Petitioner's request for review on March 3, 2005. (Id., Exhibit Q). On

February 15, 2005, Petitioner filed a third action for post-conviction relief in the trial court.

(Id., Exhibit R). The trial court dismissed the action on March 31, 2005. (Id). The Arizona

Court of Appeals declined to accept review as untimely on May 17, 2005. (Id., Exhibit S).

Based upon the time line referenced above the Magistrate Judge recommends that

Petitioner's habeas corpus petition before this Court be denied as untimely pursuant to the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

Specifically, pursuant to § 2244(d)(1) a federal habeas petition "must be filed within one year

Case 2:05-cv-01988-MHM Document 14 Filed 08/29/06 Page 2 of 4
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 -

of the latest of the date on which ... the judgment became final after the conclusion of direct

review or the time passed for seeking direct review..." The running of this one-year statute

of limitations is tolled during any period when "a properly filed application for state postconviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is

pending" in any state court. Id. § 2244(d)(2). Petitioner's conviction became final on August

31, 2001, the date the judgment was entered and he was sentenced. The limitations period ran

for approximately two weeks, from September 1, 2001 until September 17, 2001, the date

Petitioner filed his post-conviction relief proceedings in the trial court. The limitations period

commenced again on August 26, 2003, 30 days subsequent to the Arizona Court of Appeals

decision denying review of the trial court's decision. See Ariz.R.Crim.P 31.19 (providing a

30-day grace period to petition for review after the filing of decision). The limitations period

then expired on August 9, 2004, approximately eleven months and two weeks later, as

Petitioner did not have a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral

review pending. Petitioner's second action for post-conviction relief filed on August 7, 2004

did not toll the applicable limitation period because the Arizona trial court concluded the

petition was not timely filed. See Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3d 1145, 1148 (9th Cir. 2005)

(noting that a "properly filed" state court petition is one that is in compliance with the

applicable laws and rules governing filings in state court). 

Lastly, the Court finds itself in agreement with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff's

untimely habeas corpus petition is not saved by the doctrine of equitable tolling. Equitable

tolling is only appropriate when "extraordinary" or external forces, rather than a petitioner's

lack of diligence, account for the failure to file a timely petition. See Miles v. Prunty, 187

F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 1999). No such circumstances exist in this case. 

Thus, as neither party has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation, it is adopted by the Court.

/ / / 

Case 2:05-cv-01988-MHM Document 14 Filed 08/29/06 Page 3 of 4
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 - 4 -

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation in its entirety as the Order of the Court. (Dkt.#13).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied

and dismissed with prejudice. (Dkt.#1). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment

accordingly. 

DATED this 25th day of August, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01988-MHM Document 14 Filed 08/29/06 Page 4 of 4