Chairez v. Ryan et al

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 18 . That the petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied and that this action is dismissed with prejudice. That no certific ate of appealability shall issue because jurists of reason would neither find it debatable whether the petitioner's habeas petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right nor whether the Court is correct in its procedural ruling. That the petitioner should not be allowed to appeal in forma pauperis. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 5/23/12. (DMT)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10

Pedro Chairez,
Petitioner,

11
12
13
14

vs.
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-11-0769-PHX-PGR (MEA)

ORDER

15
16

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

17

Judge Aspey notwithstanding that no party has filed any objection to the Report and

18

Recommendation, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined

19

that the petitioner’s habeas corpus petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

20

should be dismissed as time-barred because it was filed over fourteen years after

21

the expiration of the AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations and the petitioner has

22

made no showing that the limitations period should be equitably tolled. Therefore,

23

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

24

(Doc. 18) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

25

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. §

26

2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied and that

1

this action is dismissed with prejudice.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue

3

because jurists of reason would neither find it debatable whether the petitioner’s

4

habeas petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right nor whether

5

the Court is correct in its procedural ruling.

6
7
8
9
10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner should not be allowed to
appeal in forma pauperis.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment
accordingly.
DATED this 23rd day of May, 2012.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

-2-