Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00781/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00781-0/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

27

28 1

 Clerk’s record number.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mohammed Ibn Akbar, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Ivan Bartos, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-781-PHX-EHC (GEE)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

On March 17, 2006, Mohammed Ibn Akbar, an inmate currently confined in the Arizona

State Prison Complex in Buckeye, AZ, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254. (Petition.); [#1]1

 Before the court are

the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the respondents’ Answer.

Pursuant to the Rules of Practice of this Court, this matter was referred to Magistrate

Judge Edmonds for report and recommendation. The Magistrate Judge recommends the District

Court, after its independent review of the record, enter an order dismissing the Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus. It is time-barred and fails to raise a cognizable claim.

//

//

Case 2:06-cv-00781-EHC Document 11 Filed 12/01/06 Page 1 of 6
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

 The record below reflects Akbar’s former name – Jack Robinson.

3

 A.R.S. § 13-604.01(A) (Supp. 1982), later renumbered as A.R.S. § 13-604.02 by 1985 Ariz.

Sess. Laws, ch. 364, § 5. (Respondents’ Answer, Exhibit 6, p. 2.)

- 2 -

Summary of the Case

On October 30, 1986, Akbar2 was sentenced in Maricopa County Superior Court on one

court of armed robbery and one count of aggravated assault. (Respondents’ Answer, p. 2.) The

court imposed concurrent sentences of life with eligibility for parole after 25 years. Id. These

were “flat-time” sentences to be served “day-for-day.” Id. In other words, Akbar was not

eligible for “good-time” sentencing credits. Id.

Akbar filed a direct appeal and three petitions for post-conviction relief challenging his

conviction and sentence. Id., pp. 2-3.

In 1994, the statute3

 under which Akbar was sentenced was amended replacing the life

sentence, which Akbar received, with a minimum term of years. (Respondents’ Answer, pp.

3-4.) To ameliorate the disparity between sentences imposed before and after the amendment,

the legislature enacted the Disproportionality Review Act which allowed the Arizona Board of

Executive Clemency (the Board) to review sentences awarded before the amendment and

recommend commutation to the governor if appropriate. Id. 

The Board reviewed Akbar’s sentences and recommended they be commuted as follows:

Counts 1 should be commuted from life to 27.5 years; Count 2 should be commuted from life

to 21 years. (Respondents’ Answer, p. 4.) The Board made no recommendation concerning

whether or not Akbar should be eligible for “good-time” sentencing credits. Id.

The governor’s office purportedly rejected the recommendation. (Respondents’ Answer,

pp. 4-5.) This rejection, however, was procedurally inadequate, and the commutation became

effective automatically. Id.; See also McDonald v. Thomas, 202 Ariz. 35, 46, 40 P.3d 819, 830

(2002). The Arizona Department of Corrections recalculated Akbar’s sentences assuming they

were still to be served “flat-time.” Id., p. 5. 

Case 2:06-cv-00781-EHC Document 11 Filed 12/01/06 Page 2 of 6
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 -

On September 19, 2002, Akbar filed a habeas corpus petition in the trial court arguing

his sentences should be eligible for “good time” credits. (Respondents’ Answer, Exhibit 18, p.

1.) On November 1, 2002, the trial court dismissed the petition as procedurally barred pursuant

to Ariz.R.Crim.Proc. 32.2(a). Id., Exhibits 17, 19. Akbar filed a petition for review with the

Arizona Court of Appeals, but that court dismissed the appeal as untimely. Id., Exhibit 19.

Akbar failed to prosecute his appeal any further. (Respondents’ Answer, pp. 5-6.)

 On March 17, 2006, Akbar filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in U.S.

District Court. He argues the Board intended that he be eligible for “good time” sentencing

credits. 

In their Answer, the respondents argue Akbar’s claim does not assert a Constitutional

question subject to federal habeas review. In the alternative, the respondents argue Akbar’s

claim was not exhausted and is now procedurally defaulted. Finally, the respondents argue

Akbar’s petition is time-barred. 

The petition should be dismissed; it is time-barred. In the alternative, the petition should

be dismissed because it does not raise a cognizable claim. The court does not reach the

respondents’ exhaustion argument.

 

Discussion

The writ of habeas corpus affords relief to persons in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition for writ

of habeas corpus must be filed within the applicable statute of limitations, or it will be

dismissed. Id. The statute of limitations reads in pertinent part as follows:

 (1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of

habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State

court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of--

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of

direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;

 * * *

Case 2:06-cv-00781-EHC Document 11 Filed 12/01/06 Page 3 of 6
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 -

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims

presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due

diligence. 

(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State

post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent

judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of

limitation under this subsection.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

Akbar argues the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC) failed to accurately

calculate his sentence after it was commuted. The statute of limitations is triggered by section

2244(d)(1)(D). 

Assuming arguendo Akbar proceeded with due diligence, the latest point at which he

became aware of ADOC’s error was on September 19, 2002, when he filed his habeas corpus

petition in the trial court arguing his sentences should not be served “flat-time.” (Respondents’

Answer, Exhibit 18, p. 1.) The limitation period would ordinarily begin to run the next day, on

September 20th, but it was tolled because Akbar’s petition was pending at this time. See 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Tolling continued until the petition was denied on November 1, 2002. See

Id., Exhibit 17. The one-year limitation period began to run the next day. Akbar’s appeal was

not properly filed so it does not toll the limitation period. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S.

408, 417 (2005) (An untimely appeal is not properly filed.); See also Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S.

189 (2006) (Interval tolling does not apply where the subsequent appeal is not timely.); Greer

v. Arizona Atty. Gen.; 2006 WL 2553403 (D. Ariz. 2006) (same). The limitation period ran out

one year later on November 1, 2003.

 The instant petition was filed on March 17, 2006. It is time-barred and should be

dismissed. 

In the alternative, the court may reach the merits of the petition, the respondents’

exhaustion argument not withstanding. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2); Franklin v. Johnson, 290

F.3d 1223, 1232 (9th Cir. 2002). The petition does not assert a cognizable claim; it therefore

should be dismissed.

Case 2:06-cv-00781-EHC Document 11 Filed 12/01/06 Page 4 of 6
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

- 5 -

The writ of habeas corpus affords relief to persons in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241. It does not provide a

remedy for alleged errors in the interpretation or application of state law. Id. 

In this case, Akbar argues the state incorrectly calculated his new sentences. This failure,

however, is at most an error of state law. The writ of habeas corpus is not available to correct

simple errors of state law. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (“[I]t is not the

province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law

questions.”); Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990); Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 469

(9th Cir. 1994). To justify relief, Akbar must establish a violation of his federal rights, which

he has not done. 

A state court’s misapplication of its own sentencing laws (assuming there is one here)

does not violate due process thereby justifying federal habeas relief unless the petitioner can

show “fundamental unfairness.” Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 469 (9th Cir. 1994); See, e.g.,

Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343, 346 (1980) (Sentencing pursuant to an unconstitutional

statute violates due process.); Murtishaw v. Woodford, 255 F.3d 926, 969 (9th Cir. 2001), cert.

denied, 535 U.S. 935 (2002) (Death sentence based on an inapplicable statute violates due

process.); United States v. Rapal, 146 F.3d 661, 663 (9th Cir. 1998) (Vindictive sentencing

violates due process.); United States v. Hanna, 49 F.3d 572, 576-77 (9th Cir. 1995) (Sentencing

based on materially false or unreliable information violates due process.); Marzano v.

Kincheloe, 915 F.2d 549, 552 (9th Cir. 1990) (A sentence unauthorized by law is

unconstitutional.). 

In this case, Akbar cannot show his “flat time” sentences are fundamentally unfair. He

cannot show, for example, that his sentences are illegal as a matter of law or inapplicable to his

particular offenses. See, e.g., Galaz v. Stewart, 207 Ariz. 452, 454, 88 P.3d 166, 168 (2004)

(The statute under which Akbar was sentenced mandated “flat time” sentences both before and

after amendment.). There is no federal due process violation. The petition should be dismissed.

Case 2:06-cv-00781-EHC Document 11 Filed 12/01/06 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

RECOMMENDATION

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review

of the record, enter an order DISMISSING the petition as time-barred or, in the alternative,

because it fails to assert a cognizable claim. [#1]

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b), any party may serve and file written objections within

10 days of being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. If objections are not

timely filed, the right to de novo review may be deemed waived. 

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this report and recommendation to the petitioner

and the respondents.

DATED this 1st day of December, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00781-EHC Document 11 Filed 12/01/06 Page 6 of 6