Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02085/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02085-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Odis Dietrich Schlosser,

Petitioner,

v.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-14-2085-TUC-DCB

ORDER

This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and the local rules of practice of this

Court for a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. Before the Court is the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 9), which recommends

that the Petition be denied and dismissed. The Petitioner filed

Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 10.) 

SUMMARY

Petitioner was convicted in Pima County Superior Court, case #CR063443, of first-degree murder and was sentenced to imprisonment for

life, without the possibility of parole. In his Petition, Petitioner

names Charles Ryan as Respondent and the Arizona Attorney General as an

Additional Respondent. Petitioner raises one ground for relief. He

alleges his due process rights have been violated because the Arizona

Supreme Court has declared the premeditation instruction given by the

Case 4:14-cv-02085-DCB Document 11 Filed 10/29/15 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

trial court to be erroneous and, therefore, he was convicted of violating

a statute that was unconstitutionally vague. Petitioner claims he has

presented this issue to the Arizona Court of Appeals and Arizona Supreme

Court.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When objection is made to the findings and recommendation of a

magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review.

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

OBJECTIONS

The R&R concluded that the habeas petition was time-barred by

at least ten years, as follows:

[T]he Arizona Supreme Court denied review of the Memorandum

Decision in Schlosser’s direct appeal on March 22, 2001...

Schlosser had until June 30, 2001 to file a petition for

writ of certiorari. Schlosser did not petition for

certiorari. One year later, on June 30, 2002, his petition

for a writ of habeas corpus became time-barred. Almost

twelve years later, on May 12, 2014, Schlosser filed his

federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. Title 8 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(2) does allow for statutory tolling during the

pendency of a state post-conviction release proceeding. But

here, by the time Schlosser filed his state Notice of PostConviction Relief on February 21, 2012, the statute of

limitations had already run so the statutory tolling

provisions do not apply.

* * *

In his Reply, Schlosser only briefly touches on the reasons

for the ten year delay in filing his habeas petition. He

explains that he thought his direct appeal in state court

proceedings was actually a petition under Rule 32,

Ariz.R.Crim.P., and that was “the reason for the 10 year gap

in filing.” Reply, p. 3. However, even if his confusion

could somehow constitute an “extraordinary circumstance,”

the ten year delay establishes without question that he has

not pursued his rights diligently. 

(R&R at 4-5.) 

Petitioner’s Objections do not highlight any new or pertinent law

or facts that were left unconsidered or unresolved by the R&R. More

Case 4:14-cv-02085-DCB Document 11 Filed 10/29/15 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

importantly, they do nothing to challenge the R&R’s conclusion that this

habeas petition is untimely by at least ten years with no equitable or

legal tolling applicable.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, after conducting a de novo review of the record,

IT IS ORDERED that the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 9) in its entirety. The Objections (Doc. 10) raised by the

Petitioner are OVERRULED. 

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

(Doc. No. 1) is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

Final Judgment to enter separately by the Clerk’s Office. A Certificate

of Appealability is likewise DENIED. This action is closed.

DATED this 28th day of October, 2015.

Case 4:14-cv-02085-DCB Document 11 Filed 10/29/15 Page 3 of 3