Coleman #073037 v. Ryan et al

Filing 14

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 13 - IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner's Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 6 ) is denied as being both t ime-barred and moot, and that this action is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability shall not issue and that leave to appeal in forma pauperis is denied because the dismissal of the petitioner's hab eas petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. (See document for further details). Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 9/22/17. (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10

Ernest Lee Coleman,
Petitioner,

11
12
13
14

vs.
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
Respondents.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-16-02964-PHX-PGR (JZB)
ORDER

16

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

17

Judge Boyle notwithstanding that no party has filed an objection to the Report and

18

Recommendation, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that

19

the petitioner’s amended habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, should

20

be dismissed because it was filed after the expiration of the AEDPA’s statute of

21

limitations and the petitioner has made no showing that the limitations period should

22

be equitably tolled, and because it is moot inasmuch as the petitioner has already

23

obtained the relief he requested in his petition, which was his release to community

24

supervision. Therefore,

25
26

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 13) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Amended Petition Under 28

2

U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 6)

3

is denied as being both time-barred and moot, and that this action is dismissed with

4

prejudice.

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability shall not issue

6

and that leave to appeal in forma pauperis is denied because the dismissal of the

7

petitioner’s habeas petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable

8

jurists would not find the ruling debatable.

9
10
11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment
accordingly.
DATED this 22nd day of September, 2017.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

-2-