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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

Michael Paul Cisneroz,

Petitioner,

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-15-02000-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

At issue are the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Michael Paul Cisneroz 

(“Petitioner”) on October 2, 2015 (Doc. 1), to which Charles Ryan and the Attorney 

General of the State of Arizona (“Respondents”) filed a Response (Doc. 10) and 

Petitioner filed a Reply (Doc. 11); and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 

prepared in this matter by United States Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine (Doc. 13), 

which recommends that this Court deny the Petition and dismiss it with prejudice. 

Petitioner timely filed an Objection to Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14), and 

Respondents filed a Response thereto (Doc. 15).

A party’s failure to file objections to the R&R is considered a waiver of a party’s 

right to de novo consideration of the issues. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). It also constitutes a waiver of a party’s right to appellate 

review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the R&R. See 

Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3rd 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007). Respondents argue in their 

Response to Objections (Doc. 15) that the Court should find Petitioner’s objections out of 

Case 2:15-cv-02000-JJT Document 16 Filed 02/16/17 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

compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) because they “do no more than reiterate the 

same general assertions that [Petitioner] made in his habeas petition.” (Doc. 15 at 1.) If 

the Court so finds, it may treat such objections as a failure to object and apply the waiver 

pursuant to Reyna-Tapia. Warling v. Ryan, 2013 WL 5276367 at *2 (D. Ariz. Sep. 19, 

2013). 

The Court nonetheless has undertaken a review of the issues presented in the 

Objections. Upon that review, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Fine’s 

recommendations are wholly sound. The Court adopts in whole Judge Fine’s R&R and 

the underlying reasoning. The Court expressly finds that under AEDPA’s limitations 

period, Petitioner’s Habeas Petition was due no later than October 9, 2009, unless a 

subsequent timely PCR proceeding was filed. None was filed timely, and thus the 

limitations period of AEDPA was not tolled, and his Petition of October 2, 2015, was 

thus nearly six years late. Petitioner’s much later filing of an untimely second PCR 

petition after his first PCR review process became final did not reset the clock for the 

limitations period or otherwise operate as statutory tolling under AEDPA; and Petitioner 

provided no justification for equitable tolling.

In his Objection, Petitioner attempts to bootstrap his way into compliance with the 

equitable tolling analysis by arguing ineffective assistance of counsel leading up to his 

entry of a change of plea. This will not work. As Judge Fine correctly found, Petitioner 

does not begin to meet the requirements of Bills v. Clark to show eligibility for equitable 

tolling due to a mental impairment. 628 F. 3d 1092, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 2010). Petitioner 

has made no showing of a but-for cause of delay relating to an injury he suffered before 

he entered his no contest plea and well before any of the deliverables at issue in this 

habeas matter became due. For all of those reasons, the Court will deny the Petition and 

dismiss it with prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED adopting the R&R (Doc. 13) in whole.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED overruling Petitioner’s Objection (Doc. 14).

Case 2:15-cv-02000-JJT Document 16 Filed 02/16/17 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

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

(Doc. 1).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability upon the 

Court’s conclusion that jurists of reason would not find its assessment of the 

constitutional claims to be debatable or wrong. The Clerk of Court shall close this matter.

Dated this 16th day of February, 2017.

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-02000-JJT Document 16 Filed 02/16/17 Page 3 of 3