Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00944/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00944-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Jose Gonzales
Petitioner
Charles L Ryan
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 

27 

28 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Juan Jose Gonzales, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, 

Respondent.

No. CV-13-00944-PHX-SRB

ORDER 

 Petitioner was convicted of 15 felony counts after a jury trial on May 1, 1998. He 

was sentenced on June 29, 1998 and took a timely direct appeal. The Arizona Court of 

Appeals affirmed his convictions and sentencing on June 8, 1999. Petitioner did not 

petition for review by the Arizona Supreme Court. Petitioner’s next state court filing was 

on June 26, 2008 when he initiated his first state Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. He 

filed a number of petitions in state court, the last of which was denied by the Arizona 

Court of Appeals on March 15, 2012. The Arizona Supreme Court summarily denied 

review on May 23, 2013. On May 6, 2013, Petitioner filed his federal Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus. The Government filed a Limited Answer requesting that the petition be 

denied and dismissed with prejudice because it was barred by the statute of limitations. 

Thereafter, Petitioner filed a Traverse arguing that the statute of limitations should be 

equitably tolled because he had demonstrated extraordinary circumstances. 

Case 2:13-cv-00944-SRB Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

 On September 18, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and 

Recommendation recommending that the Petition be denied because Petitioner did not 

file his federal habeas petition within one-year of the date his state convictions became 

final and because Petitioner had not established that he was entitled to equitable tolling. 

Petitioner timely filed objections again arguing that the one-year statute of limitations 

does not apply to him because of extraordinary circumstances. 

 Petitioner does not dispute that he failed to file his Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus within one-year of the date on which his judgment of conviction became final by 

conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review as 

required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The Magistrate Judge explained in his Report 

and Recommendation why Petitioner had failed to state an adequate basis for equitable 

tolling of the one-year statute of limitations noting that his pro se status, ignorance of the 

law, and lack of legal representation during the limitations period did not constitute 

circumstances justifying equitable tolling because these circumstances are not 

extraordinary. (Doc. 14, Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) at 10). The Magistrate 

Judge further explained that Petitioner failed to show his entitlement to equitable tolling 

by showing actual innocence of the crimes of conviction. 

 In his objections Petitioner argues that the ineffective assistance of his trial 

counsel, both pretrial and during trial, somehow amounts to extraordinary circumstances 

excusing his failure to file his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus within one-year of the 

date his conviction became final in 1999. He also complains about his court-appointed 

appellate counsel and his court-appointed counsel on his state Petition for PostConviction Relief but fails to explain how appellate counsel’s alleged ineffective 

representation through the date his conviction became final in 1999 prevented him from 

timely filing his federal petition. By the time his post-conviction relief counsel was 

appointed to represent him in 2008, the statute of limitations had long since expired. 

 Petitioner’s first state court Petition for Post-Conviction Relief was filed on June 

23, 2008, almost nine years after his convictions and sentences became final and almost 

Case 2:13-cv-00944-SRB Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

eight years after the statute of limitations to file a federal habeas petition had expired. 

Petitioner’s objections do not address or make any claim or showing of actual innocence. 

 IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner’s Objection to the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge on Habeas Corpus Proceedings. (Doc. 15) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court. (Doc. 14) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

(Doc. 1) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability. The Court 

finds Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right 

or that jurist of reason would find the procedural ruling debatable. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment denying the 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and dismissing the Petition with prejudice. 

 Dated this 29th day of October, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-00944-SRB Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 3 of 3