Hill v. White et al

Filing 54

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 45 . Denying the following: petitioner's Motion for Default Judgement 33 , Notice Motion (Doc. 34), Motion for Summary Judgment 35 , First Amended Motion for Summary Judgement 37 , Second Notice Motio n (Doc. 38), Second Amended Motion for Summary Judgement 39 , Motion for Specific Action/Request to Expedite Proceeding 49 , and Request [to] Expedite Release Order 53 are all denied. That the petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (as amended) is denied and that this action is dismissed. No certificate of appealability shall issue and that the petitioner shall not be allowed to appeal in forma pauperis because the dismi ssal of the habeas petition is justified in part by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable, and because the petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 5/2/11. (DMT)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 Isiah Romont Hill, Petitioner, 11 12 13 14 vs. William White, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-10-1339-PHX-PGR (LOA) ORDER 15 16 Having reviewed de novo the [Second] Report and Recommendation of 17 Magistrate Judge Anderson in light of the petitioner’s Written Objections to 18 Report/ Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Anderson (Doc. 51) and Objection 19 to Magistrate[‘]s Report/Recommendation Not Granting Pre-Proceeding Motions 20 (Doc. 52), the Court finds that the petitioner’s objections should be overruled and 21 that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the petitioner’s Petition for 22 Writ of Habeas Corpus, timely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as well as his 23 pending motions, should all be denied. 24 First, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner’s first 25 ground for habeas relief, the gist of which is that his grand jury indictment and all 26 subsequent state court proceedings are void due to being based on evidence 1 obtained through illegal electronic surveillance, is not cognizable as a matter of 2 law on federal habeas review because the record establishes that the petitioner 3 not only had a full and fair opportunity during his state court proceeding to litigate 4 this Fourth Amendment-based claim, which is all that is required, but that he 5 actually did litigate the issue through a motion to suppress the electronic 6 surveillance evidence filed by his trial counsel and a suppression hearing held by 7 the state court. See Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494 (1976) (United States 8 Supreme Court held that “where the State has provided an opportunity for full and 9 fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted 10 federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an 11 unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial.”); Ortiz-Sandoval v. 12 Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir.1996) (Court concluded that the relevant 13 inquiry regarding the cognizability of a Fourth Amendment claim raised in a 14 federal habeas proceeding “is whether petitioner had the opportunity to litigate his 15 claim, not whether he in fact did so or even whether the claim was correctly 16 decided.”) 17 Second, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the merits of the 18 petitioner’s second ground, the gist of which is that he was illegally tried because 19 he was mentally incompetent to stand trial notwithstanding an expert’s report that 20 he had been restored to mental competency prior to the trial, and of his third 21 ground, the gist of which is that he was never properly advised of the 22 constitutional rights he was giving up by pleading guilty, cannot be reached on 23 federal habeas review because those claims were procedurally defaulted 24 because the petitioner did not fairly present them to the state courts, and that his 25 failure to do so cannot be excused because the petitioner has not established any 26 -2- 1 cause for the procedural defaults or any prejudice arising from the alleged 2 constitutional errors, or that a fundamental miscarriage of justice will result from 3 the Court not deciding these defaulted claims. 4 Third, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner’s 5 fourth ground, the gist of which, to the extent that the Court can make any sense 6 of it, appears to be that the state is precluded from challenging the petitioner’s 7 release from custody because the Arizona Court of Appeals found his claims of 8 illegal electronic surveillance to be “cognizable” and the state attorney general 9 failed to get involved in the petitioner’s case to challenge his conviction 10 notwithstanding being told by the Arizona Court of Appeals to do so, does not 11 present a federal constitutional or statutory claim that is reviewable by this Court 12 through a petition for federal habeas relief. 13 Fourth, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner’s fifth 14 ground, the gist of which is that the petitioner’s counsel was ineffective as he lost 15 the wiretap suppression motion and that this ineffective assistance resulted in the 16 petitioner involuntarily pleading guilty and being convicted based on illegally 17 obtained evidence, must be denied on its merits because the state court’s finding 18 that there was no ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland test was 19 neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal 20 law as determined by the Supreme Court. 21 Also pending before the Court is the petitioner’s appeal (Doc. 48) of 22 Magistrate Judge Anderson’s order (Doc. 46) denying the petitioner’s Motion 23 Request “Disqualification of Recusal” of Magistrate [pursuant to] 28 USC §§ 24 144/155 (Doc. 44). The Court finds that the petitioner’s appeal should be denied 25 because the Magistrate Judge’s decision denying the recusal motion was neither 26 -3- 1 clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The petitioner’s 2 motion is not predicated on any alleged bias or prejudice on Magistrate Judge 3 Anderson’s part stemming from any extrajudicial source; rather, it is based on the 4 Magistrate Judge’s performance while presiding over matters in this action, i.e. 5 his alleged failure to rule on the plaintiff’s motions and issue a Report and 6 Recommendation as fast as the petitioner thinks he should have. There is no 7 basis for recusal because nothing in the petitioner’s motion establishes that a 8 reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the 9 Magistrate Judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned by his conduct in 10 this action. 11 Also pending is the petitioner’s appeal (Doc. 50) of the Magistrate Judge 12 Anderson’s order (Doc. 43) denying various motions filed by the petitioner related 13 to the sufficiency of the state’s answer to his habeas petition. The Court finds 14 that the appeal should be denied because the Magistrate Judge’s decision to 15 address the issues raised in the petitioner’s motions through the Report and 16 Recommendation, rather than directly resolving the merits of the motions 17 themselves, was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. 18 Therefore, 19 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 20 (Doc. 45) is accepted and adopted by the Court. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Motion for Default 22 Judgement (Doc. 33), Notice Motion (Doc. 34), Motion for Summary Judgment 23 24 25 26 1 The Court notes that the recusal issue is also now moot because Magistrate Judge Anderson, having issued his Report and Recommendation, has no further duties to perform in this action -4- 1 (Doc. 35), First Amended Motion for Summary Judgement (Doc. 37), Second 2 Notice Motion (Doc. 38), Second Amended Motion for Summary Judgement 3 (Doc. 39), Motion for Specific Action/Request to Expedite Proceeding (Doc. 49), 4 and Request [to] Expedite Release Order (Doc. 53) are all denied.2 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 6 § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (as amended) 7 is denied and that this action is dismissed. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue 9 and that the petitioner shall not be allowed to appeal in forma pauperis because 10 the dismissal of the habeas petition is justified in part by a plain procedural bar 11 and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable, and because 12 the petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 13 right. 14 15 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. DATED this 2nd day of May, 2011. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 24 25 26 The petitioner has also filed a Legend Emergency Motion Under Circuit Rule 27-3 [&] 27-12 (Doc. 42) which is captioned as being directed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. To the extent that the motion is directed to this Court, it is denied. -5-

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?