Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01858/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01858-1/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

1 On February 1, 1996, a jury convicted Petitioner of several offenses, including

endangerment, and found that he had a prior felony conviction and committed the crimes

while on parole. The court sentenced him to life imprisonment on the endangerment

convictions. His conviction became final on January 6, 1998, and the statute of limitations

commenced January 7, 1998.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jeffrey Shane Johnson,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et. al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 11-CV-1858-PHX-PGR (JFM)

 ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Metcalf

(Doc. 18), which addresses Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed on

September 21, 2011, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). Petitioner filed objections to the

Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 27.)

Magistrate Judge Metcalf recommends that the Court deny the petition as barred by

the one-year statute of limitations set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).1

 Specifically, Magistrate Judge Metcalf concludes that

Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012), and Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012),

decided March 12, 2012, did not announce a newly-recognized constitutional right that

would apply retroactively to Petitioner’s case and render his petition timely under 28 U.S.C.

Case 2:11-cv-01858-PGR Document 30 Filed 03/19/13 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

27

28

2 Petitioner does not challenge Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s finding that neither

statutory nor equitable tolling apply. (Doc. 27 at 2.)

- 2 -

§ 2244(d)(1)(C). Petitioner objects to this conclusion.2 (Doc. 27 at 2.)

Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s conclusion is correct. “[N]either Cooper nor Frye

announced a new rule of constitutional law.” Williams v. United States, 705 F.3d 293 (9th

Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (citing Buenrostro v. United States, 697 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir.

2012); In re King, 697 F.3d 1189 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam); Hare v. United States, 688

F.3d 878, 879–80 (7th Cir. 2012); In re Perez, 682 F.3d 930, 932–34 (11th Cir.2012) (per

curiam)). Therefore, Petitioner’s habeas petition is untimely and must be dismissed.

Having reviewed the matter de novo in light of Petitioner’s objections, the Court will

adopt the Report and Recommendation, deny the habeas petition, and dismiss the action.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 18) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED by the Court. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.

1) is DISMISSED and DENIED with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING a Certificate of Appealability.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

DATED this 18th day of March, 2013.

Case 2:11-cv-01858-PGR Document 30 Filed 03/19/13 Page 2 of 2