Espinoza-Beltran v. Walker

Filing 17

ORDER granting 14 Motion to Amend/Correct Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; Accepted and Adopted 16 Report and Recommendations. The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus(Doc.6) is DENIED. Judgment entered accordingly.. Signed by Senior Judge Frank R Zapata on 4/12/2012.(JKM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Hector Jesus Espinoza-Beltran, Petitioner, 10 11 vs. 12 Charles Ryan, et al, 13 Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 11-088-TUC-FRZ ORDER 14 15 Before the Court for consideration is the First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 16 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Petitioner Hector Jesus Espinoza-Beltran and 17 the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, recommending that this Court 18 issue an Order denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 19 This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Glenda E. Edmonds pursuant to Rules 20 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings and report and 21 recommendation. 22 Magistrate Judge Edmonds issued her Report and Recommendation, recommending 23 that the District Court, after its independent review of the record, enter an order dismissing 24 the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as time barred. 25 As set forth in detail in the Report and Recommendation, the limitation period for all 26 of Espinoza-Beltran’s claims commenced on September 18, 2001, “the date on which the 27 judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for 28 seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The one-year period expired on 1 September 18, 2002. Espinoza-Beltran did not filed his federal petition for habeas relief until 2 January 28, 2011. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Edmonds properly concluded this present 3 action is time barred. 4 The Report and Recommendation also advised that any party may serve and file 5 written objections within 14 days of being served with a copy of this report and 6 recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b), and that, if objections are not timely filed, 7 they may be deemed waived. No objections were filed. 8 The Court finds, after consideration of the matters presented and an independent 9 review of the record herein, that the Petition should be denied as time barred and this action 10 be dismissed as recommended. 11 In the event of an appeal, the Court finds that Petitioner has failed to make the 12 requisite showing necessary to justify the issuance of a certificate of appealability. A 13 certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing 14 of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “[A] substantial showing of 15 the denial of a constitutional right . . . includes showing that reasonable jurists could debate 16 whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues 17 presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 18 529 U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1603-04 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 19 880, 893 n.4, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3395 n.4 (1983)). See also Turner v. Calderon, 281 F.3d 851, 20 865 (9th Cir. 2002). “When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds 21 without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a [certificate of 22 appealability] should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find 23 it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and 24 that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its 25 procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484; 120 S.Ct 1604. Such has not been presented. 26 Based on the foregoing, 27 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) is hereby 28 ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law; -2- 1 2 3 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petitioner for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 6) is DENIED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Amend/Correct Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 14) is GRANTED; 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event of an appeal, the Court finds there are 6 no issues “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further” and thus, no certificate of 7 appealability shall issue; 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment be entered accordingly. 9 10 DATED this 12th day of April, 2012. 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?