McAuley v. Ryan et al

Filing 24

ORDER that Magistrate Judge Metcalf's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19 ) is accepted and adopted by the Court. That the Motion to Hold Petition (Doc. 9 ) is denied. That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1 ) is denied and dismissed with prejudice. That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 7/30/15. (KGM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

Patrick Casey McAuley,

9
10

Petitioner,
vs.

11
12

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
Respondents.

13
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-14-01756-PHX-SPL
ORDER

15

Before the Court is Petitioner Patrick Casey McAuley’s Petition for Writ of

16

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1), and Motion to Hold Petition (Doc.

17

9). The Honorable James F. Metcalf, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and

18

Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 19), recommending that the petition and motion be

19

denied; Petitioner has objected to the R&R (Docs. 23). For the reasons that follow, the

20

Court accepts and adopts the R&R, and denies the petition.

21

I.

Background

22

In 1991, Petitioner was indicted in the Maricopa County Superior Court, Case No.

23

CR 1991-000922, for first degree premeditated murder of his wife, Paula McAuley.1

24

(Doc. 15-1, Exh. A.)2 Petitioner was found guilty by jury trial (Doc. 15-1, Exh. A), and

25

on August 21, 1992, he was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of

26

1

27

The Court notes that Petitioner and the victim’s last name are spelled
interchangeably as “McAuley” and “McCauley.”
2

28

Petitioner does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s factual summary, which the
Court adopts and incorporates by reference.

1

parole until serving 25 years of flat time. (Doc. 15-1, Exh. C.)

2

On August 8, 2014, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in

3

District Court (Doc. 1), raising three claims for relief. He also has filed a Motion to Hold

4

Petition (Doc. 9), in which he moves to stay this action while he exhausts a new claim in

5

state court. Respondents have responded to each (Docs. 13, 15), arguing that the motion

6

should be denied, that the petition should be dismissed as untimely, and alternatively, that

7

Petitioner’s claims are procedurally defaulted and barred from federal habeas corpus

8

review.

9

II.

Standard of Review

10

The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

11

recommendations made by a magistrate judge in a habeas case. See 28 U.S.C. §

12

636(b)(1). The Court must undertake a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to

13

which specific objections are made. See id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v.

14

Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). However, a petitioner is not entitled

15

as of right to de novo review of evidence and arguments raised for the first time in an

16

objection to the R&R, and whether the Court considers the new facts and arguments

17

presented is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622 (9th Cir.

18

2000).

19

III.

Having reviewed the objected to recommendations de novo, the Court finds that

20
21

Discussion

the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Petitioner’s claims are time-barred.

22

The writ of habeas corpus affords relief to persons in custody pursuant to the

23

judgment of a State court in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United

24

States. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(3), 2254(a). Such petitions are governed by the

25

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”).3 28 U.S.C. § 2244.

26

The AEDPA imposes a 1-year statute of limitations in which “a person in custody

27
3

28

The AEDPA applies to federal habeas petitions filed after its effective date, April
24, 1996. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 326-27 (1997).
2

1

pursuant to the judgment of a State court” can file a federal petition for writ of habeas

2

corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

3

A.

Commencement of Limitations Period

4

Petitioner was sentenced in 1992. Following denial of a timely direct appeal by

5

Arizona Court of Appeals, on November 22, 1995, the Arizona Supreme Court

6

summarily denied Petitioner’s request for review, and affirmed his convictions and

7

sentences. (Doc. 15-2, Exh. Q.) Therefore, Petitioner’s judgment became final in 1995.

8

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) (the 1-year limitations period runs from the date on which

9

judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for

10

seeking such review); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 641, 656 (2012).

11

Because Petitioner’s conviction became final before the enactment of the AEDPA

12

however, the limitations period did not commence until the day after it became effective,

13

April 25, 1996. See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 2001).

14

Petitioner objects to the R&R on the basis that the limitations period should be

15

calculated from the date of discovery of the factual predicate of his claim. See 28 U.S.C.

16

§ 2244(d)(1)(D) (the 1-year limitations period may also run from “the date on which the

17

factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the

18

exercise of due diligence.”). Namely, Petitioner points to his discovery of an August 2009

19

report published by the National Academy of Sciences (“NAS”). He maintains that new

20

expert testimony addressing the report’s findings would prove that the fiber, tire track,

21

and shoe print evidence presented at trial was unreliable. (Docs. 9 at 3; 23 at 6.)

22

First, while Petitioner’s “new” claim may rely on the NAS report, the NAS report

23

does not relate to any of the three claims presented in the instant federal habeas petition.

24

Second, the NAS report does not qualify as the “factual predicate” of his new claim.

25

Rather, the factual predicate of Petitioner’s claim is the fiber, tire track, and shoe print

26

evidence, which Petitioner was aware of at the time of trial. See Hasan v. Galaza, 254

27

F.3d 1150, 1154 fnt. 3 (9th Cir. 2001) (the factual predicate is the facts, not the legal

28

significance of those facts); Shannon v. Newland, 410 F.3d 1083, 1088–89 (9th Cir.
3

1

2005) (distinguishing between discovery of legal clarification and discovery of factual

2

predicate). To any extent Petitioner argues that it is the unreliability of the evidence that

3

is the predicate of his claim, the NAS report was not key to discovering that fact.

4

Petitioner maintains he is not guilty of premeditated murder, and that the forensic

5

evidence presented at trial was therefore fabricated. (Doc. 23 at 12-13.) It follows that the

6

unreliability of the evidence would have been evident to Petitioner at the time of trial,

7

because it would have conflicted with his account of the events that occurred. In fact,

8

Petitioner cites to his state writ of habeas corpus, in which he stated that at the time of

9

trial that he knew the government was “fabricating new evidence.” (Doc. 18 at 2-3.)

10

Nevertheless, as reasoned in part by the Magistrate Judge, Petitioner did not need the

11

NAS report to refute the reliability of the forensic evidence at trial, because this “is

12

precisely the kind of evidence that the adversary system is designed to test.” United

13

States v. Berry, 624 F.3d 1031, 1040 (9th Cir. 2010). Therefore, absent any tolling, the

14

one-year limitations period would have expired in April 1997.

15

B.

16

Petitioner’s first post-conviction relief proceedings concluded in 1994, before the

17

limitations period began to toll. (See Doc. 15-2, Exh. J.) Petitioner did not file a second

18

petition for post-conviction relief until 2013 (Doc. 15-1, Exh. S), 17 years after the statute

19

of limitations period had expired in 1997. As a result, the second notice of post-

20

conviction relief did not statutorily toll the limitations period under 28 U.S.C. §

21

2244(d)(2). See Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 482 (9th Cir. 2001) (once the AEDPA

22

limitations period expires, a subsequently filed petition for post-conviction relief cannot

23

restart the statute of limitations); Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir.

24

2003) (state petition filed after the expiration of AEDPA’s one-year period does not

25

revive a limitations period that ended before state petition was filed).4 Therefore, because

26

4

27
28

Statutory Tolling of Limitations Period

Further, because Petitioner’s second post-conviction relief proceeding was denied
as untimely (Doc. 15-1, Exh. T), it would not have tolled the limitations period. See Pace
v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 417 (2005) (“Because the state court rejected petitioner’s
PCRA petition as untimely, it was not ‘properly filed,’ and he is not entitled to statutory
tolling under § 2244(d)(2)”).
4

1

the limitations period had already expired, the other subsequent notices and petitions for

2

post-conviction relief, including Petitioner’s October 2013 Rule 32 petition (Doc. 15-2,

3

Exh. Z), also did not toll the time to file a federal habeas petition. Petitioner’s argument

4

that he was required to exhaust his new claim in state court prior to filing a federal habeas

5

petition has no bearing on whether the limitations period was statutorily tolled.

6

C.

Equitable Tolling of Limitations Period

7

Petitioner next objects that the R&R wrongly found that he was not entitled to

8

equitable tolling. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning however, and

9

finds Petitioner has not established that extraordinary circumstances prevented him from

10

filing a timely federal habeas corpus petition. See Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649

11

(2010) (“a petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling only if he shows (1) that he has been

12

pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his

13

way and prevented timely filing” his federal habeas petition) (internal quotations

14

omitted).

15

Petitioner first objects to R&R on the basis that he lacks access to a “‘law library’

16

entirely,” which merits equitable tolling. (Doc. 23 at 9.) Among other things, Petitioner

17

asserts that “ADOC provides no information on the AEDPA, AEDPA itself, any federal

18

statutes, no case law or legal authority regarding the same.” (Doc. 23 at 10.) True, in

19

certain circumstances, a lack of access to legal resources may be an extraordinary

20

circumstance warranting equitable tolling. See, e.g., Whalem/Hunt v. Early, 233 F.3d

21

1146, 1148 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding that unavailability of a copy of the AEDPA in a

22

prison law library could be grounds for equitable tolling). Petitioner’s contention

23

however, is undermined by his own federal habeas petition and filings in this Court, in

24

which he discusses the AEDPA and cites to case law addressing its application. (See

25

Docs. 1 at 20; 18; 23.) Therefore, Petitioner has not shown that despite his own diligence,

26

his lack of access to legal recourses resulted in the untimeliness of his petition. Waldron-

27

Ramsey, 556 F.3d at 1013.

28

Petitioner also objects to the R&R on the basis that he has a mental condition that
5

1

entitles him to equitable tolling. (Doc. 23 at 9.) See Laws v. Lamarque, 351 F.3d 919, 926

2

(9th Cir. 2003) (where “a habeas petitioner’s mental incompetence in fact caused him to

3

fail to meet the AEDPA filing deadline, his delay was caused by an extraordinary

4

circumstance beyond [his] control.”); Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2010);

5

Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768 (9th Cir. 2010). Petitioner however, fails to

6

demonstrate that his mental impairment (or impairments) were the “but-for cause of any

7

delay,” making it impossible for him to meet the filing deadline. Bills, 628 F.3d at 1099-

8

1100. Petitioner alleges that from April 1993 until 2001, he was in a “chemically induced

9

incompetent state.” (Doc. 18 at 3.) As discussed by the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 19 at 22),

10

assuming that Petitioner was forced medicated until 2001 as he contends (Doc. 23 at 10),

11

that condition ended 13 years before Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition. Even if

12

Petitioner remained medicated to some degree following 2001, he does not put forth a

13

good-faith showing that his mental impairment remained “so severe” that it constituted an

14

extraordinary circumstance beyond his control. Bills, 628 F.3d at 1096; Roy v. Lampert,

15

465 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2006) (an evidentiary hearing is warranted where the

16

petitioner “‘makes a good faith allegation that would, if true, entitle him to equitable

17

tolling’”) (quoting Laws, 351 F.3d at 919).

18

Petitioner does not show that he was prevented from timely filing a federal habeas

19

petition and is entitled to equitable tolling. Therefore, because the instant habeas petition

20

was not filed until 2014, more than a decade after the limitations period expired, his

21

claims are time-barred.

22

D.

Innocence Exception to Limitations Period

23

Lastly, Petitioner objects to the R&R on the basis that his credible claim of actual

24

innocence entitles him to have the merits of his petition considered. To be clear,

25

Petitioner does not claim that he did not kill Paula McAuley. Rather, Petitioner maintains

26

that he is innocent of the crime of first degree premeditated murder. He claims that “[t]he

27

newly discovery evidence, once developed, will support Petitioner’s actual innocence of

28

First Degree [murder] by removing the entire first crime scene and prove by [coupling] it
6

1

with the state’s already admitted pos[]ition that the killing was not pre-planned and was

2

the result of heat of passion.” (Doc. 23 at 13.)

3

“[A]n actual-innocence gateway claim” may serve as an exception to AEDPA’s

4

limitations period. McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 1924, 1928 (2013)

5

(also referred to as a “fundamental miscarriage of justice exception”) (adopting Schlup v.

6

Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 314-15 (1995), holding actual innocence is an exception to

7

procedurally defaulted claims). This exception is applied in rare instances, and a “tenable

8

actual-innocence gateway” claim will not be found unless the petitioner “persuades the

9

district court that, in light of the new evidence, no juror, acting reasonably, would have

10

voted to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” McQuiggin, 133 S. Ct. at 1928

11

(citing Schlup, 513 U.S. at 329). “To be credible, such a claim requires petitioner to

12

support his allegations of constitutional error with new reliable evidence—whether it be

13

exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical physical

14

evidence—that was not presented at trial.” Schlup, 513 U.S. at 324. See also Lee v.

15

Lampert, 653 F.3d 929, 945 (9th Cir. 2011); McQuiggin, 133 S. Ct. at 1927 (explaining

16

the significance of an “[u]nexplained delay in presenting new evidence”).

17

First, Petitioner objects to the R&R’s finding that the NAS Report does not present

18

a tenable actual innocence gateway claim. The Magistrate Judge rejected Petitioner’s

19

claim finding “[a]t best, the NAS Report provides a basis upon which Petitioner could

20

attempt to challenge part of the prosecutions’ evidence against him. It is not evidence of

21

Petitioner’s innocence.” (Doc. 19 at 24.) The Court agrees with this reasoning. Even if

22

Petitioner could present expert evidence that discredited the forensic evidence found at

23

the crime scene, it would not refute the other evidence presented at trial supporting the

24

state’s theory of premeditation, such as the extensive witness testimony regarding the

25

tumultuous relationship between Petitioner and the victim, the witness testimony

26

regarding the victim’s behavior in the hours preceding her murder, and the tape recording

27

of the argument between Petitioner and the victim the night of murder. (See Doc. 15-2,

28

Exhs. K, N.) Even if the strength of the evidence weighed in favor of second degree
7

1

murder, the Court cannot say that exclusion of the fiber, tire track, and shoe print analysis

2

would have so undermined the state’s case that it was more likely than not that no

3

reasonable jury would have convicted Petitioner of first degree murder.

4

Second, Petitioner objects to the R&R’s conclusion that his challenge to the legal

5

finding of premeditation at the time of his conviction does not present a tenable actual

6

innocence gateway claim. He further argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in his

7

discussion of the state statute5 and State v. Thompson, 65 P.3d 420 (Ariz. 2003) (Doc. 23

8

at 11). In short, Petitioner claims that the premeditation instruction given to the jury

9

unconstitutionally relieved the State of its burden to prove the actual reflection necessary

10

for first degree murder, thereby allowing his conviction to be based merely on

11

instantaneous thoughts. (Doc. 23 at 11-13.) See State v. Ramirez, 945 P.2d 376, 382

12

(Ariz. Ct. App. 1997) (finding that the court's instruction, which “essentially told the jury

13

that an act could be both impulsive and premeditated… obliterated the distinction

14

between first and second degree murder”).

15

“One way a petitioner can demonstrate actual innocence is to show in light of

16

subsequent case law that he cannot, as a legal matter, have committed the alleged crime.”

17

Vosgien v. Persson, 742 F.3d 1131, 1334 (9th Cir. 2014). Petitioner does not do so here.

18

Petitioner does not show that as a legal matter, he could not have committed first degree

19

premeditated murder based on the facts under which he was convicted. More specifically,

20

Petitioner does not show that as a legal matter, he could not have actually reflected before

21

intentionally murdering Paula McAuley. See Thompson, 65 P.3d at 428. At best, he offers

22

that under the theories and instructions presented to the jury, as a legal matter, Petitioner

23

could have been found to have committed either first or second degree murder. Yet, he

24

5

25
26
27
28

The statutory definition is Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-1101(1) (1978) provided:
“Premeditation” means that the defendant acts with
either the intention or the knowledge that he will kill
another human being, when such intention or
knowledge precedes the killing by a length of time to
permit reflection. An act is not done with
premeditation if it is the instant effect of a sudden
quarrel or heat of passion.
8

1

does not show that he is actually innocent because he could not have committed

2

premeditated murder as a matter of law. Vosgien, 742 F.3d at 1135.

3

While Petitioner challenges the constitutional adequacy of the procedures that led

4

to his conviction and inherently the fairness of that conviction, his does not point to

5

evidence of actual, factual innocence. Therefore, Petitioner has not shown that there is

6

new evidence of actual innocence that justifies review of his time-barred claims.

7

IV.

Conclusion

8

Having reviewed the record as a whole, and finding none of Petitioner’s objections

9

have merit, the R&R will be adopted in full. For the same reasons the Court finds that the

10

petition is time-barred and that he has not presented a tenable innocence gateway claim,

11

Petitioner’s objections to the R&R regarding his request to stay and for an evidentiary

12

hearing equally fail. See House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 555(2006) (explaining that the a

13

freestanding claim of actual innocence “requires more convincing proof of innocence

14

than [a] Schlup” gateway claim); Stewart v. Cate, 757 F.3d 929, 942 (9th Cir. 2014)

15

(evidentiary development is not required where, even if the new evidence is fully

16

credited, it would not entitle him to relief); King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1141 (9th Cir.

17

2009) (a stay is appropriate only where the newly exhausted claim would relate back to a

18

timely filed federal habeas petition). Accordingly,

19

IT IS ORDERED:

20

1.

21

That Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is

accepted and adopted by the Court;

22

2.

That the Motion to Hold Petition (Doc. 9) is denied;

23

3.

That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

24

(Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice;
4.

25

That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis

26

on appeal are denied because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain

27

procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable; and

28

///
9

1

5.

That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

2

Dated this 30th day of July, 2015.

3
4

Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10