Opinion
No. CV-06-2293-PHX-PGR (BPV).
June 11, 2008
ORDER
Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Velasco in light of the petitioner's Objections to Report and Recommendation (doc. #21), the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the petitioner's federal habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be dismissed because it was filed more than four years after the expiration of the limitations period mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that there is no merit to the petitioner's contention that the limitations period should be equitably tolled. A prisoner seeking equitable tolling must show (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way.Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005). The petitioner has not met the very high threshold necessary to trigger equitable tolling since none of his contentions regarding the alleged inadequacies of the Arizona Department of Corrections' contract paralegal program as a whole are sufficient to establish that he diligently took advantage of whatever assistance was available to him or that the contract paralegal program caused the untimely filing of his federal habeas petition. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (doc. #18) is accepted and adopted by the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied as time-barred and that this action is dismissed in its entirety. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.