Canez v. Ryan et al

Filing 36

ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 32 - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed and denied with prejudice. (Doc. 12 .) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certi ficate of Appealability and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Petitioner's motion for an extension of the deadline for responding to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 12 .) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close this case. (See document for full details). Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 6/12/14. (LAD)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Arturo A. Canez, Petitioner, 10 11 12 v. Charles L. Ryan, et. al., Respondents. 13 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 12-CV-2232-PHX-PGR (SPL) ORDER 14 15 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Logan (Doc. 16 32), which addresses Petitioner’s First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed 17 February 25, 2013, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 12). Petitioner filed objections to the 18 Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 34.) 19 Magistrate Judge Logan recommends that the Court deny the petition as barred by 20 the one-year statute of limitations set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty 21 Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Magistrate Judge Logan concludes that Petitioner is not 22 eligible for statutory or equitable tolling. Having reviewed the matter de novo, the Court will 23 adopt the Report and Recommendation. 24 Petitioner’s convictions and sentences became final on October 7, 2011.1 The 25 limitations period was statutorily tolled until April 29, 2011, when Petitioner’s timely-filed 26 27 28 On September 10, 2007, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s life sentence for first-degree murder. State v. Canez, 2007 WL 5595966 (App. 2007). Petitioner’s conviction became final 30 days later. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(a) 1 1 petition for postconviction relief was denied. (Doc. 20-2, Ex. P.) Petitioner filed his petition 2 for habeas corpus relief on October 18, 2012 (Doc. 1), nearly six months after the limitations 3 period expired. 4 For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner’s argument 5 for additional statutory tolling fails because after April 29, 2011, no timely petition for 6 review was pending. (See Doc. 32 at 14–15; Doc. 20-2, Ex. R.) Petitioner’s arguments for 7 equitable tolling fail to meet the exceptionally high burden required for a showing that he had 8 been “pursuing his rights diligently” and that “some extraordinary circumstances stood in 9 [his] way.” Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418–19 (2005); see, e.g., Law v. Lamarque, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 351 F.3d 919, 922 (9th Cir. 2003); Whalem/Hunt v. Early, 233 F.3d 1146, 1148 (9th Cir. 2000). Finally, Petitioner’s actual innocence argument fails because it is not supported by new evidence showing factual innocence. See Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 324 (1995). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Logan’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 32) is accepted and adopted by the Court. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s First Amended Petition for Writ of 17 Habeas Corpus is dismissed and denied with prejudice. (Doc. 12.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Petitioner’s motion for an extension of the deadline for responding to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 12.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close this case. DATED this 12th day of June, 2014. 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?