Ardizzone v. Jones

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 26, 2013
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
MARTY RAY ARDIZZONE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 12-6288
(D.C. No. 5:12-CV-00913-HE)
JUSTIN JONES, Director, (W.D. Okla.)
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and BRORBY, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Marty R. Ardizzone, an Oklahoma state prisoner, sought a certificate of
appealability (COA) from this court to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his
habeas petition as an unauthorized second-or-successive petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. After finding that the correctness of the district court’s procedural ruling
was debatable, we granted a COA and ordered the appellee to file a response
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
addressing why the case should not be remanded to the district court for
consideration of the merits of Mr. Ardizzone’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The
appellee argued in response that the district court’s dismissal should be affirmed
under the abuse-of-the-writ doctrine or because Mr. Ardizzone’s claim was
time-barred. We do not reach the appellee’s contentions because we hold that
Mr. Ardizzone waived his right to appellate review by failing to file a timely
objection to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (R&R) in the district
court.
After the district court ordered the appellee to file a response to
Mr. Ardizzone’s habeas petition, the appellee moved to dismiss the petition, and
Mr. Ardizzone filed a response in opposition to the motion. A magistrate judge then
issued an R&R on November 8, 2012, recommending that the petition be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction. The R&R advised the parties of their right to file objections
and set a deadline of November 28, 2012. The R&R stated further that “[t]he failure
to timely object to this Report and Recommendation would waive appellate review of
the recommended ruling.” R. at 267.
Rather than filing an objection in the district court, Mr. Ardizzone filed a
premature notice of appeal on November 15, 2012. On November 16, this court
ordered him to show cause within 21 days (i.e., by December 7), why his appeal
should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the district court had not yet
issued an appealable order. In that order we also reiterated that Mr. Ardizzone had
-2-
until November 28 to file an objection to the R&R in the district court. But
Mr. Ardizzone still did not file an objection to the R&R by that deadline. On
December 3, the district court issued an order noting his lack of objection, adopting
the R&R, and dismissing his petition. Mr. Ardizzone filed his objection in the
district court on December 5. The court construed his filing as a motion to reconsider
or vacate its December 3 order. It denied the motion, noting his failure to justify the
late filing of his objection.
Mr. Ardizzone filed a memorandum brief in this court on December 26, 2012,
which we construed as a response to our November 16 show-cause order. He
indicated that he intended to appeal the district court’s December 3, 2012 order. On
January 16, 2013, we ordered him to show cause why his appeal should not be
dismissed based on his failure to file a timely objection to the R&R. He responded
on February 1, stating that he thought that the deadline for filing his objection was
December 7, 2012, based on this court’s November 16 show-cause order. He
explained that he understood our order to have set a December 7 deadline because it
said that the appeal would be tolled until that date. He noted that he filed his
objection on December 5 based on that understanding, which he now recognizes was
incorrect.
“This circuit has adopted a firm waiver rule when a party fails to object to the
findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge.” Casanova v. Ulibarri,
595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and brackets
-3-
omitted). Under this rule, “the failure to make timely objection waives appellate
review of both factual and legal questions.” Id. (internal quotation mark and ellipsis
omitted). “There are two exceptions when the firm waiver rule does not apply: when
(1) a pro se litigant has not been informed of the time period for objecting and the
consequences of failing to object, or when (2) the interests of justice require review.”
Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234, 1237 (10th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
The first exception does not apply here because the R&R advised
Mr. Ardizzone of the deadline to file his objection and the consequence of a failure to
do so. “Among the factors this court has considered in determining whether to
invoke the interests-of-justice exception are [1] a pro se litigant’s effort to comply,
[2] the force and plausibility of the explanation for his failure to comply, and [3] the
importance of the issues raised.” Casanova, 595 F.3d at 1123 (internal quotation
marks and brackets omitted). Regarding the first factor, Mr. Ardizzone did make an
effort to comply by filing an untimely opposition to the magistrate judge’s R&R. But
the second factor does not weigh in his favor because his explanation for failing to
file a timely objection is not plausible. The R&R itself set forth the November 28
deadline. Even if Mr. Ardizzone was confused by the R&R, as evidenced by his
premature notice of appeal, we explained in our November 16 show-cause order that
the case was still pending in the district court, and we reminded him that he had been
given until November 28, 2012, to file his objection to the magistrate judge’s
-4-
recommendation in the district court. Thus, Mr. Ardizzone was advised not once, but
twice, about the time limit for filing his objection in the district court, yet he still
failed to comply.
As to the third factor, through our COA Order we have advised the appellee
and the district court of the need to distinguish between habeas petitions collaterally
attacking a prisoner’s conviction or sentence, which are filed and considered under
§ 2254, and habeas petitions challenging the execution of a prisoner’s sentence,
which are properly considered under § 2241. Mr. Ardizzone has not otherwise shown
that the interests of justice support an exception to our firm waiver rule in this case,
such that we should reach the merits of his appeal.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Entered for the Court
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-5-