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-
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?