Ramirez v. Bijins et al, No. 2:2007cv01444 - Document 17 (D. Ariz. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 of the Magistrate Judge; the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Stephen M McNamee on 5/12/09. (LSP)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 MARIO OAXACA RAMIREZ, 9 Petitioner, 10 vs. 11 TOERS BIJINS, et al., 12 Respondent, 13 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 07-1444-PHX-SMM (JJM) MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER 14 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Mario Ramirez s Petition for Writ of Habeas 15 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge 16 Jacqueline J. Marshall for a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 2). On March 27, 2009 the 17 Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court recommending that the 18 Petition be denied (Doc. 11). On April 21, 2009, Mr. Ramirez filed his Objection to the 19 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16). Defendant did not respond to Mr. Ramirez s 20 Objection. After considering the Report and Recommendation and the arguments raised in 21 Mr. Ramirez s Objection thereto, the Court now issues the following ruling. 22 STANDARD OF REVIEW 23 When reviewing a Magistrate Judge s Report and Recommendation, this Court shall 24 make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made, 25 and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 26 made by the magistrate. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 27 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 28 (9th Cir. 1983)). DISCUSSION1 1 2 In his Petition, Mr. Ramirez challenges his conviction by the Maricopa County 3 Superior Court, CR 2001-009260, of sexual misconduct with a minor, pursuant to a jury 4 verdict (Dkt. 1). Petitioner s conviction became final on December 29, 2003. More than 5 three years later, Petitioner filed his Petition on August 2, 2007. 6 The Magistrate Judge found that the one-year statute of limitations in the 7 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ( AEDPA ) barred the Petition. 28 U.S.C. § 8 2244(d)(1); see also Lott v. Mueller, 304 F.3d 918, 920 (9th Cir. 2002). First, the Magistrate 9 Judge concluded that no statutory tolling applied. Petitioner had filed his First Post- 10 Conviction Relief notice ( PCR ) on October 20, 2003. While the statute of limitations was 11 tolled while Petitioner s First PCR remained pending, the First PCR was dismissed by the 12 trial court and the Arizona Court of Appeals later denied review on July 19, 2005. 13 Consequently, the AEDPA statute of limitations began to run on August 18, 2005, when the 14 Petitioner s opportunity to petition the Arizona Supreme Court for review expired. 15 Although Petitioner filed a Second PCR on February 14, 2006, the trial court 16 dismissed it as untimely. As the trial court noted, when Petitioner filed his Second PCR, the 17 time for filing a Rule 32 of right proceeding had long expired. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a) 18 ( notice must be filed within ninety days after the entry of judgment and sentence . . . . ). 19 As a result, the state petition was not properly filed and failed to toll the limitations period. 20 See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 413-14 (2005) (holding a state petition that is not 21 filed within the state s required time limit is not properly filed and therefore does not toll 22 the limitations period). Therefore, the time for Petitioner to file the pending federal habeas 23 corpus petition expired on August 18, 2006, one year after the expiration of Petitioner s 24 opportunity to petition the Arizona Supreme Court. As the Petition was not filed until 25 August 2, 2007, it was untimely by nearly a year. 26 27 28 1 The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11). -2- 1 The Magistrate Judge also concluded that no equitable tolling applied because 2 Petitioner did not meet his burden of establishing extraordinary circumstances beyond his 3 control made it impossible for him to file the Petition on time. See Calderon v. United States 4 Dist. Court (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by 5 Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Kelly), 163 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) 6 Petitioner specifically objects to the Report and Recommendation on the ground that 7 equitable tolling should apply. Petitioner contends that he was separated from his legal 8 papers and did not have the legal training to present his arguments in this case. Furthermore, 9 Petitioner claims that he and an inmate assisting him with his case were separated at different 10 prisons for a period, and thus, Petitioner did not have the inmate s help in preparing the 11 Petition. According to Petitioner, there were extraordinary circumstances beyond his control 12 that made it impossible for him to file a timely Petition. 13 Having reviewed the legal conclusions of the Report and Recommendation of the 14 Magistrate Judge, and the objections having been made by Petitioner thereto, the Court finds 15 that the Magistrate Judge adequately addressed all of Petitioner s arguments. Therefore, the 16 Court hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge s Report and Recommendation. CONCLUSION 17 18 For the reasons set forth above, 19 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court ADOPTS the Report and 20 Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 11). 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant 22 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED WITH 23 PREJUDICE. 24 DATED this 12th day of May, 2009. 25 26 27 28 -3-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
