Hill # 129417 v. Creio et al

Filing 27

ORDER: Petitioner's Habeas Corpus Amendment (Doc. 25 ), construed as a motion for reconsideration, is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent that a certificate of appealability is necessary, no certificate of appealability shall issue because reasonable jurists would not find the Court's procedural ruling debatable;Petitioner's Request for Copy of Petition (Doc. 26 ) is granted and that the Clerk of the Court shall mail the petitioner a copy of his Habeas Corpus Amendment (Doc. 25 ). Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 8/30/2016. (REK)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10

Talmadge Laroy Hill,
Petitioner,

11
12
13
14
15

vs.
Ron Creio, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-12-00985-PHX-PGR
ORDER

16

The Court entered its judgment on October 2, 2013 wherein it dismissed this

17

habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as time-barred because it was

18

filed more than 12½ years after the expiration of the AEDPA’s statute of limitations.

19

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petitioner a certificate of appealability

20

because his notice of appeal was not timely filed.

21

Having considered the petitioner’s Habeas Corpus Amendment (Doc. 25),

22

construed by the Court as a motion for reconsideration of its order and judgment of

23

dismissal, the Court finds that nothing in the petitioner’s allegedly newly discovered

24

evidence persuades the Court that the petitioner has made any legally sufficient

25

showing that the limitations period should be equitably tolled or that he is actually

26

innocent of the crimes for which he was convicted. Therefore,

1
2

IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner’s Habeas Corpus Amendment (Doc. 25),
construed as a motion for reconsideration, is denied.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent that a certificate of appealability

4

is necessary, no certificate of appealability shall issue because reasonable jurists

5

would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable.

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Request for Copy of Petition

7

(Doc. 26) is granted and that the Clerk of the Court shall mail the petitioner a copy

8

of his Habeas Corpus Amendment (Doc. 25).

9

DATED this 30th day of August, 2016.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

-2-