Loomis #206936 v. Ryan et al

Filing 21

ORDER that the motion to amend or alternatively stay this case (Doc. 19 ) is denied. FURTHER ORDERED that any objections to the R&R are due by 02/22/16. See order for details. Signed by Senior Judge James A. Teilborg on 1/20/16. (NKS)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 John Charles Loomis, Petitioner, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-14-00445-PHX-JAT Charles L. Ryan, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before this Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. On 16 September 1, 2015, the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned issued a Report 17 and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that the Petition be denied. Petitioner was 18 granted an extension of time until November 2, 2015, to file objections to the R&R. 19 Instead of filing objections, Petitioner filed a motion to amend or alternatively stay 20 his Petition. Doc. 19. Petitioner seeks to amend to add a claim that the state courts 21 applied the wrong state statute of limitations to Petitioner’s case. If this Court will not 22 allow amendment, Petitioner seeks a stay to present this claim to the state courts. 23 Respondents oppose the stay or amendment. Doc. 20. Petitioner filed his Petition 24 on the last day to meet the statute of limitations under AEDPA. R&R at 3. Thus, 25 Respondents note that any new claims added now would be barred by the statute of 26 limitations. Doc. 20 at 2-3. Further Respondents argue that Petitioner’s new claim does 27 not relate back to his timely filed Petition. Id. The Court agrees with Respondents that 28 any proposed amendment would be untimely, and would not relate back to the original 1 Petition. Thus, this Court will deny amendment because any amendment would be futile 2 procedurally. 3 Second, and alternatively, Respondents note that habeas relief is not available for 4 errors of state law; and Petitioner’s proposed new claim would allege a violation of only 5 state law. 6 attempting to allege an error of state law that would not be cognizable on habeas. For 7 this reason, any amendment would be futile on the merits; and, this Court will deny the 8 request to amend on this alternative basis. Doc. 20 at 3-4. This Court agrees with Respondents that Petitioner is 9 Because, even if this claim were exhausted in state court, it would still not provide 10 a basis for federal habeas relief, this Court will not stay consideration of this case to 11 permit Petitioner to return to state court.1 Accordingly, 12 13 14 15 16 IT IS ORDERED that the motion to amend or alternatively stay this case (Doc. 19) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any objections to the R&R are due by February 22, 2016. Dated this 20th day of January, 2016. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 28 Nothing in this Order prohibits Petitioner from attempting to present the new claim to the state courts should he deem such an effort to be worthwhile; but for the reasons stated herein, the Court will not stay this federal habeas case. -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?