Hill # 129417 v. Creio et al

Filing 19

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 16 . ORDER that petitioner's Petition Under 28:2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied and that this action is dismissed. ORDER that no certificate of appealability shall issue and that the petitioner is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis. ORDER that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 10/1/13. (TLJ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10

Talmade Laroy Hill,
Petitioner,

11
12
13
14
15

vs.
Ron Creio, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-12-00985-PHX-PGR (LOA)
ORDER

16

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

17

Judge Anderson in light of the petitioner’s document entitled “Timely Petition” (Doc.

18

18), which the Court construes as the petitioner’s objections to the Report and

19

Recommendation, the Court finds that the petitioner’s objections should be overruled

20

because the Magistrate Judge properly concluded that the petitioner’s habeas

21

petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be dismissed as time-barred.

22

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that since the AEDPA’s one-year

23

statute of limitations expired on September 22, 1999 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

24

2244(d)(1)(A) and § 2244(d)(2), the petitioner’s habeas petition, which was not filed

25

until May 3, 2012, was untimely by more than 12½ years. The Court further agrees

26

with the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner is not entitled to any equitable tolling of

1

the limitations period because his only stated excuse for the untimely filing, which

2

is that he did not know that the AEDPA’s statute of limitations existed, is insufficient

3

to demonstrate that an extraordinary circumstance made it impossible for him to file

4

a timely petition. Therefore,

5
6

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 16) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

7

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

8

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

9

this action is dismissed.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue and

11

that the petitioner is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis because the dismissal

12

of the petitioner’s habeas petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of

13

reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.

14
15
16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment
accordingly.
DATED this 1st day of October, 2013.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

-2-