Moreno v. Ryan et al

Filing 16

ORDER: The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 15 is accepted and adopted by the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED 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; No certificate of appealability shall issue and the petitioner is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 1/2/2014. (ALS)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 Abraham Barrera Moreno, 11 Petitioner, 12 13 14 vs. Charles L. Ryan, et al., Respondents. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-12-01555-PHX-PGR (LOA) ORDER 16 Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate 17 Judge Anderson notwithstanding that no party has filed any objections to the Report 18 and Recommendation, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly 19 determined that the petitioner’s habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 20 should be dismissed as time-barred. 21 First, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the one-year statute of 22 limitations of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act began to run on 23 October 15, 2010 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1)(A), the date his judgment of 24 conviction became final, and that it expired on October 17, 2011, approximately nine 25 months before the petitioner filed this action on July 13, 2012. To the extent that the 26 petitioner argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1 1309 (2012), issued on March 20, 2012, delayed the start of the limitations period 2 pursuant to either 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C), which concerns newly recognized 3 constitutional rights made retroactive by the Supreme Court, or § 2244(d)(1)(D), 4 which concerns the discovery of the factual predicate of an alleged claim, the 5 Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Martinez has no applicability to this action 6 as it does not concern the timeliness of a habeas petition. 7 Second, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner is not 8 entitled to equitable tolling of the limitations period because he has not shown the 9 existence of any extraordinary circumstance that would justify such tolling, nor has 10 he shown that any external impediment frustrated the diligent pursuant of his claims. 11 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 12 Recommendation (Doc. 15) is accepted and adopted by the Court. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 14 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied and that 15 this action is dismissed. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue and 17 that the petitioner is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis because the dismissal 18 of the petitioner’s habeas petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of 19 reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. 20 21 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. DATED this 2nd day of January, 2014. 23 24 25 26 -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?