Eaton v. Ryan et al
Filing
12
ORDER - Magistrate Judge Duncan's R & R (Doc. 10) is ACCEPTED. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court shall TERMINATE this action. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find the Court's procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v.McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 6/8/11. (KMG)
<![CDATA[
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Steven James Eaton,
10
Plaintiff,
11
vs.
12
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
13
Defendant.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-10-8134-PHX-GMS (DKD)
ORDER
15
16
Pending before this Court is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Petitioner
17
Steven James Eaton. (Doc. 1). On January 25, 2011, Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan
18
issued a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) in which he recommended that the Court
19
deny the Petition and dismiss it with prejudice. (Doc. 10). Petitioner filed an objection to the
20
R & R (Doc. 11). For the reasons stated herein, the Court accepts the R & R and denies the
21
petition.
22
On July 26, 2010, Petitioner timely filed a writ of habeas corpus, raising one claim for
23
relief–that he was denied his right to appeal. (Doc. 1). In his R & R, Judge Duncan denied
24
Petitioner’s claim for relief, providing the following two reasons: (1) that Petitioner had not
25
adequately raised the constitutional claim in state court and (2) that his claim is procedurally
26
defaulted for failure to “observe” state filing deadlines and he has failed to establish cause
27
and actual prejudice to excuse the default. (Doc. 10). Petitioner timely filed an objection to
28
Judge Duncan’s R & R, which is set forth in its entirety below:
1
2
3
State v. Pruett 912 P.2d 1357 (1995) Holds people like me who plead guilty appeal
by filing a Rule 32.
Mayers v. Arizona 908 P.2d 56 (1992) Holds prisoners file a pleading when they give
this to prison officials.
Pruett states appeal is guaranteed by 14th Amendment. In my Petition for Review I
made this argument. As such habeas relief should be granted.
4
(Doc. 11).
5
Even if the Court accepts Petitioner’s argument that he “fairly presented” the federal
6
claim to the state court, see Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995), Eaton has not
7
objected to Judge Duncan’s determination that his claim “is procedurally barred on
8
independent and adequate state grounds” because he failed to timely file his notice of post9
conviction relief and his petition for review. (Doc. 10).1 When a claim is procedurally barred,
10
a petitioner is required to demonstrate cause for the procedural default and actual prejudice.
11
Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162 (1996) (“[T]he procedural bar that gives rise to
12
exhaustion provides an independent and adequate state-law ground for the conviction and
13
sentence, and thus prevents federal habeas corpus review of the defaulted claim, unless the
14
petitioner can demonstrate cause and prejudice for the default.”).
15
In the R & R, Judge Duncan concluded that Petitioner had not established cause and
16
actual prejudice because Eaton’s explanation for the untimely filing was “that he delivered
17
his notice to prison officials on February 9, more than eight months after sentencing, and
18
therefore well past the 90-day deadline.” (Doc. 10). In other words, even if the prison
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
On June 2, 2009, the day the state courted entered Petitioner’s sentence, Petitioner
received a “Notice of Rights of Review After Conviction”, which clearly states that he was
required to “file a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief (Form XXIV(c)) within 90 days of the
entry of Judgment and Sentence.” (Doc. 8, Ex. F). On April 1, 2010, Petitioner filed a Motion
to Vacate the court’s dismissal of his March 5, 2010 “Notice of Rule 32”. (Id., Ex. I). In that
Motion, Petitioner stated that he gave prison officials his original notice on February 9, 2009,
several months before he was actually convicted. The superior court interpreted that
statement to mean that he had submitted the notice to prison officials on February 9, 2010,
and concluded that his notice was untimely. (Id., Ex. J). Although in his “Petition for
Review” filed in the Arizona Court of Appeals Petitioner asserted that he delivered his notice
to prison officials within the 90 days of his sentencing (id.. Ex. K), Judge Duncan was
persuaded that Eaton’s original assertion that he submitted the notice on February 9, 2010,
was likely accurate. (Doc. 10). Petitioner did not object to Judge Duncan’s finding.
-2-
1
officials did in fact fail to deliver his notice, Eaton has not established cause because he did
2
not provide that notice to the officials until approximately six months after the filing
3
deadline. See Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 (1986) (Cause is established if a
4
petitioner “can show that some objective factor external to the defense impeded counsel’s
5
efforts to comply with the State’s procedural rule.”). The Court agrees. Furthermore,
6
Petitioner has not objected to Judge Duncan’s determination that he failed to establish cause
7
and prejudice for his procedural default, and therefore, the Court need not review Petitioner’s
8
sole claim for relief.
9
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
10
1.
Magistrate Judge Duncan’s R & R (Doc. 10) is ACCEPTED.
11
2.
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED.
12
3.
The Clerk of the Court shall TERMINATE this action.
13
4.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event
14
Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because
15
reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v.
16
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
17
DATED this 8th day of June, 2011.
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?
