Cavazos v. Schriro et al

Filing 19

ORDER that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 17 is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED by the Court. FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion 11 for a New Trial is DENIED. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 3/30/09. (KMG)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Adam P. Cavazos, Petitioner, v. Dora B. Schriro, et al., Respondents.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CV 08-0246-PHX-PGR (LOA) ORDER

Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Anderson (Doc. 17) based on Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.1) and his Motion for a New Trial (Doc.11.) Having reviewed the Petition, Motion for a New Trial, Report and Recommendation, and the Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and in light of the Court's finding that Petitioner's Objections lack merit, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED by the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice. /// /// /// /// ///

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for a New Trial (Doc. 11.) is DENIED.1 DATED this 30th day of March, 2009.

In addition to the substantive reasons for adopting the Report and Recommendations, a "Motion for a New Trial" is not the proper vehicle for Petitioner to challenge his state-court conviction and sentence in this Court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254, 2241. The aforementioned motion is also duplicative of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and thus a denial is warranted on that basis as well.
1

2