Curren v. Arizona, State of et al

Filing 19

ORDER that the 18 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is accepted. It is ordered denying with prejudice the 8 Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 07/26/11. (ESL)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Keith Ray Curren, Petitioner, 10 11 vs. 12 Charles L. Ryan, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 10-2712-PHX-FJM ORDER 15 16 17 The court has before it petitioner's second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (doc. 8), respondents' answer (doc. 17), and the report and 19 recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. 18). No objection to the report 20 and recommendation was filed and the time for doing so has expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 72(b)(2). 22 In his only ground for relief, petitioner contends that he was denied the effective 23 assistance of counsel in connection with his plea agreement. Specifically, petitioner alleges 24 that his attorney informed him that he would be sentenced for eight years, rather than the ten 25 he received. The Magistrate Judge did not reach the merits of petitioner's argument because 26 he found the petition was untimely. Petitioner even admits that the petition is untimely. The 27 Magistrate Judge further concluded that petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling because 28 ignorance of the law, here, being unaware of the meaning of "propria persona," is not an 1 extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling. We agree with the Magistrate 2 Judge's conclusion. 3 Magistrate Judge pursuant to Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 5 6 Accordingly, we accept the report and recommendation of the IT IS ORDERED DENYING WITH PREJUDICE the second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 8). DATED this 26th day of July, 2011. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?