Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00577/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00577-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joshua Wayne Trotter
Petitioner
United States of America
Respondent

Document Text:

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

United States of America,

 Plaintiff/Respondent,

vs.

Joshua Wayne Trotter,

 Defendant/Movant

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-0577-PHX-PGR (ECV)

No. CR-05-1135-PHX-PGR

 

 ORDER

 

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Voss, filed January 23, 2012, notwithstanding that no party has filed any

objections to the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the Magistrate

Judge correctly determined that the movant’s Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside

or Correct Sentence, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, must be denied because

the movant’s initial § 2255 motion was filed nearly three years after the expiration of

the one-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255(f) and the movant has not shown that the limitations period should be

equitably tolled. Therefore,

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

(Doc. 13) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

Case 2:11-cv-00577-PGR Document 14 Filed 04/11/12 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

- 2 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the movant’s Motion to Amend/Supplement

Record Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) (Doc. 12) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the movant’s Amended Motion Under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal

Custody (Doc. 4) is denied and that this action is dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to

proceed on appeal in forma pauperis are denied because the dismissal of the

movant’s § 2255 motion is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason

would not find the procedural ruling debatable.

DATED this 11th day of April, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-00577-PGR Document 14 Filed 04/11/12 Page 2 of 2