Coleman v. Attorney General of the State of Arizona

Filing 15

ORDER: The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13 ) is accepted and adopted by the Court. Petitioner's Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 5 ) is den ied and that this action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall be issued and that the petitioner is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the procedural ruling debatable. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 11/04/2015. (REK)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Anthony William Coleman,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-14-02434-PHX-PGR

Attorney General of the State of Arizona, et
al.,

13
14

Respondents.

15

The Court has before it the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 13) of

16

Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns, filed on September 15, 2015. Petitioner has filed

17

objections to the R&R (Doc. 14). The Court, having reviewed de novo the R&R,

18

Petitioner’s objections, and the entire record in this matter, will overrule the objections.

19

Petitioner’s objections relate to the R&R’s determination that Martinez v. Ryan,

20

132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), is inapplicable and does not excuse the untimeliness of

21

Petitioner’s federal habeas petition. Specifically, Petitioner contends that he did not learn

22

of the Martinez decision until 2013, so he could not have filed his claim based on

23

Martinez until that time.

24

As found in the R&R, Martinez is inapplicable here. At issue in Martinez was

25

“whether a federal habeas court may excuse a procedural default of an ineffective-

26

assistance claim when the claim was not properly presented in state court due to an

27

attorney’s errors in an initial-review collateral proceeding.” Martinez, 132 S. Ct. at 1313

28

(emphasis added). The Supreme Court held that such a procedural default could be

1

excused if the failure to raise the issue in state court was due to the ineffective assistance

2

of counsel (or lack or counsel) at the initial-review collateral proceeding. Id. at 1320.

3

Thus, Martinez is applicable when the issue is procedural default of a claim.

4

Martinez did not, however, address and is therefore not applicable when the issue is

5

whether a claim is untimely due to the running of the AEDPA limitations period. See

6

Brown v. Ryan, 2015 WL 3990513, at *9 (D. Ariz. 2015) (“The Martinez decision does

7

not address the timeliness of a habeas petition or the tolling of the AEDPA limitations

8

period.”); Wheelwright v. Wofford, 2014 WL 3851155, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (“Although

9

the rule in Martinez is an equitable one, it applied only to procedural default issues and

10

does not apply to equitable tolling principles pertinent to the AEDPA limitations issue.”);

11

Perry v. Uribe, 2014 WL 4463120, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (“Martinez dealt solely with

12

the state procedural default doctrine, which is entirely different from the issue presented

13

here of whether Petitioner herein (including the ineffective assistance of trial counsel

14

claim alleged in Ground 2) was time barred under the AEDPA statute of limitations.”);

15

see also White v. Martel, 601 F.3d 882, 884 (9th Cir. 2010) (the adequacy analysis used

16

to decide procedural default issues is inapplicable to the determination of whether a

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

federal habeas petition was barred by the AEDPA statute of limitations).
In the present case, at issue is not whether Petitioner’s claim is procedurally
defaulted, but rather whether Petitioner’s claim is time barred by the AEDPA limitations
period. Accordingly, Martinez is inapplicable and the timing of when Petitioner learned
of Martinez is irrelevant.
The Court agrees with and adopts the R&R, including the determination that the
statute of limitations ran prior to Petitioner’s filing of his habeas petition, and that his
petition is therefore untimely.
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc.
13) is accepted and adopted by the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 5) is denied and
that this action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment
-2-

1

accordingly.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall be issued

3

and that the petitioner is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis because dismissal of the

4

Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the

5

procedural ruling debatable.

6

Dated this 4th day of November, 2015.

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

-3-