Beltran v. Ryan et al

Filing 61

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 48 Report and Recommendation. Beltran's Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 1 ) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and shall then close its file in this matter. A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue in this case. Signed by Senior Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 1/8/2019. (KEP)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 Rosalio D. Beltran, Petitioner, 9 10 vs. 11 Charles L. Ryan, et al., 12 Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CV 17-004-TUC-CKJ ORDER 13 Pending before the Court is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Addendum 14 (“Petition”) (Doc. 1) filed by Rosalio D. Beltran (“Beltran”). Respondents have filed a 15 Limited Answer (“Answer”) (Docs. 29-39) and Beltran has filed a Reply (Doc. 47). On 16 January 31, 2018, Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman issued a Report and Recommendation 17 (Doc. 48) in which she recommended the District Court dismiss with prejudice Beltran’s 18 Petition (Doc. 1) as time-barred. Beltran has filed an Objection (Doc. 50) and Respondents 19 have filed a Response (Doc. 54). After its independent review, the Court DISMISSES with 20 prejudice Beltran’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) as time-barred. 21 22 I. Addendum Filed by Beltran 23 Beltran has also filed an Addendum to Petitioner’s Objection to the U.S. Magsitrate’s 24 R & R (Doc. 58). Prior to that filing, Beltran had requested additional time to file a reply to 25 the government’s response. In denying that request, the Court stated: 26 27 28 Although the applicable rule, Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), provides for an objection to a Report and Recommendation and a response to that objection, it does not provide for the filing of a reply. See also 18 U.S.C. 636(b). Petitioner has not set forth any authority or any reason for this Court to permit the filing of a reply in this case. 1 April 18, 2018, Order (Doc. 57). Beltran’s Addendum appears to be an attempt to 2 circumvent this ruling. 3 Moreover, as Beltran states in his Addendum, he has presented many of these 4 arguments in his many state and federal filings. Indeed, a review of the Addendum indicates 5 Beltran is merely restating or expanding upon prior arguments. 6 Nonetheless, although Beltran’s prior filings include the assertions made in the 7 declaration attached to his Addendum, see e.g. Objection (Doc. 50, p. 20), these assertions 8 were not under penalty of perjury as in the Addendum (Doc. 58, Ex. A, p. 7). The Court 9 therefore will accept this filing only to accept and consider the declaration of Beltran. 10 11 II. Report and Recommendation 12 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 13 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Further, under 28 U.S.C. 14 § 636(b)(1), if a party makes a timely objection to a magistrate judge's recommendation, then 15 this Court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 16 recommendation] to which objection is made.” The statute does not “require [] some lesser 17 review by [this Court] when no objections are filed.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50, 18 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Rather, this Court is not required to conduct “any 19 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Id. at 149. 20 21 III. Objections to Report and Recommendation 22 A. August 2011 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Filed in State Courts 23 Beltran attempted to file a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas 24 Corpus with the Arizona appellate courts on August 1, 2011. The Arizona Court of Appeals 25 transferred the petition to the Pima County Superior Court. Shortly thereafter, Beltran filed 26 his first federal petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court. The federal petition was 27 denied on December 11, 2013. 28 On October 14, 2014, the state trial court amended Beltran’s sentences for his -2- 1 misdemeanor convictions to 180 days with 428 days’ presentence incarceration credit. The 2 magistrate judge previously determined that the October 14, 2014, state court ruling served 3 as a new judgment. As stated in the R & R, Beltran’s judgment became final on Monday, 4 November 3, 2014, when he failed to file a notice of appeal. R & R, p. 6. Beltran’s current 5 petition was “constructively filed . . . on December 29, 2016 when he placed it in the prison 6 mailing system.” Id. This was more than a year after the statute of limitations had expired 7 on November 3, 2015. 8 However, Beltran argues that the 2011 petition tolled the statute of limitations. As the 9 limitations period did not begin to run until after the new date of judgment, a petition and 10 ruling filed before that new date of judgment cannot toll the applicable statute of limitations. 11 12 B. Permission by State Court to File New Petition for Post-Conviction Relief 13 Beltran argues that the state court granted him permission to file a new petition for 14 post-conviction relief. Beltran asserts he submitted a timely joint Notice of Post-Conviction 15 Relief as to CR-2007-4026 and CR-2010-0750. When the state court required separate 16 Notices, Beltran filed Notices in each case. He asserts that the March 5, 2015, Notice should 17 be considered timely as the original joint Notice had been timely submitted. However, 18 Beltran has not provided the Court with a copy of the original joint Notice. Moreover, in 19 asserting he filed a joint Notice, Beltran does not state when he submitted this joint Notice. 20 In other words, it has not been shown that Beltran submitted a timely Notice of Post- 21 Conviction Relief. 22 Furthermore, even if Beltran had submitted a copy of a timely joint Notice, principles 23 of comity require this Court to respect the procedural state requirements and findings. The 24 Ninth Circuit has summarized: 25 26 27 28 In Coleman v. Thompson, the Supreme Court held that a state prisoner's failure to comply with the state's procedural requirements in presenting his claims is barred from obtaining a writ of habeas corpus in the federal court by the adequate and independent state ground doctrine. 501 U.S. 722, 731–32, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991) (“Just as in those cases in which a state prisoner fails to exhaust state remedies, a habeas petitioner who has failed to meet the State's procedural requirements for presenting his federal claims has deprived the state courts of an -3- 1 2 opportunity to address those claims in the first instance”); see also id. at 732, 111 S.Ct. 2546 (“The independent and adequate state ground doctrine ensures that the States' interest in correcting their own mistakes is respected in all federal habeas cases”). 3 Schneider v. McDaniel, 674 F.3d 1144, 1152–53 (9th Cir. 2012). Indeed, “[w]hen a post 4 conviction petition is untimely under state law, ‘that [is] the end of the matter’ for purposes 5 of § 2244(d)(2).” Pace v. DeGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 414 (2005) (quoting Carey v. Safford, 6 536 U.S. 214, 226 (2002)) (alteration in Pace). The Arizona courts determined Beltran’s 7 petition was untimely. That the state court nonetheless permitted Beltran to file a post8 conviction relief pleading does not alter the state court’s finding.1 9 10 C. Mailing to Arizona Supreme Court 11 Beltran asserts the magistrate erred in stating, “Beltran mailed a copy of his state 12 habeas petition to the state supreme court.” Objection (Doc. 50, p. 3). However, the R & R 13 does not include such language and the Court finds that any such statement would not affect 14 the substance of the issues. 15 16 D. Substantive Issues and/or Equitable Tolling 17 In his Objection, Beltran also argues substantive issues raised in his habeas petition 18 (e.g., ineffective assistance of counsel). However, those issues are not properly considered 19 by the Court unless it is determined Beltran has timely presented his claims. 20 Alternatively, Beltran may be seeking to argue that the statute of limitations should 21 be equitably tolled under Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), and Trevino v. Thaler, 569 22 U.S. 413, 428–29 (2013). See e.g. Holland v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2549 (2010) (AEDPA 23 statute of limitations is subject to equitable tolling). However, the Supreme Court has 24 declined to expand Martinez and Trevino to include claims of ineffective assistance of 25 appellate counsel. Davila v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 2058, 2062–63 (2017). Moreover, Beltran did 26 27 28 1 Presumably, Beltran was permitted to file a post-conviction petition, despite the untimely Notice, because of state recognized exceptions to the timeliness requirement. -4- 1 not raise any ineffective assistance claims against trial counsel in his first post-conviction 2 relief proceeding, despite an opportunity to do so. 3 4 IV. Conclusion 5 The Court agrees with the analysis and conclusions of the magistrate judge. Beltran 6 did not submit a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review 7 warranting tolling of the limitations period. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Beltran’s petition is 8 time-barred and dismissal is appropriate. 9 10 V. Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) 11 Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, requires that in habeas cases the 12 “district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order 13 adverse to the applicant.” Such certificates are required in cases concerning detention arising 14 “out of process issued by a State court”, or in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 attacking 15 a federal criminal judgment or sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Here, the petition is 16 brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and challenges detention pursuant to a State court 17 judgment. This Court must determine, therefore, if a COA shall issue. 18 The standard for issuing a COA is whether the applicant has “made a substantial 19 showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “Where a district 20 court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 21 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find 22 the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. 23 McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Additionally, 24 25 26 [w]hen the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. 27 Id. In the certificate, the Court must indicate which specific issues satisfy the showing. See 28 -5- 1 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). 2 This Court determined that Beltran’s petition is untimely under the one-year statute 3 of limitations of the AEDPA. This Court further determined that Beltran has failed to 4 establish that he is entitled to either statutory or equitable tolling. The Court finds that jurists 5 of reason would not find it debatable whether the petition stated a valid claim of the denial 6 of a constitutional right and the Court finds that jurists of reason would not find it debatable 7 whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. A COA shall not issue as to 8 Beltran’s claims. 9 10 Any further request for a COA must be addressed to the Court of Appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Ninth Circuit R. 22-1. 11 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 12 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 48) is ADOPTED. 13 2. Beltran’s Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a 14 15 16 Person in State Custody (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and shall then close its file in this matter, and; 17 4. A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue in this case. 18 DATED this 8th day of January, 2019. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6-

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?