Pember v. Ryan et al
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 23 ; Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 4 is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice; a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because dismissal is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable, and because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 10/3/12. (REW)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Jay Lynn Pember,
10
11
Petitioner,
vs.
12
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-11-1600-PHX-SMM (LOA)
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND
ORDER
15
16
Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson’s Report and
17
Recommendation advising this Court that Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas
18
Corpus (Doc. 4) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied and dismissed with prejudice. (Doc.
19
23.) Petitioner has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 24), and
20
Respondents have filed a Response (Doc. 27). After considering the Report and
21
Recommendation and the arguments raised in Petitioner’s Objections thereto, the Court will
22
deny Petitioner’s objections and affirm Judge Anderson’s Report and Recommendation.
23
STANDARD OF REVIEW
24
When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court “shall
25
make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,”
26
and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
27
made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923
28
F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452,
1
454 (9th Cir. 1983)).
DISCUSSION1
2
3
Petitioner claims four grounds for relief in his Petition. (Doc. 4.) In Ground One,
4
Petitioner alleges that the trial court violated his rights under the 5th, 6th, and 14th
5
Amendments by dismissing a prospective juror outside of Petitioner’s presence before voir
6
dire. (Id.) In Ground Two, Petitioner alleges that the trial court violated his 5th, 6th, and 14th
7
Amendment rights by requiring him to wear leg shackles during trial, and by not granting a
8
mistrial after a juror heard Petitioner get handcuffed on one occasion. (Id.) In Ground Three,
9
Petitioner alleges that his 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendment rights were violated due to both
10
ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”) on his direct appeal, and the court of appeals’
11
rulings clarifying his sentence. (Id.) Finally, in Ground Four, Petitioner alleges that the trial
12
court violated his 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendment rights by amending its sentencing minute
13
entry to require that Petitioner perform community service following his release, without
14
giving notice to Petitioner. (Id.)
15
After conducting a thorough legal analysis, the Magistrate Judge concluded that
16
Petitioner’s claims are all procedurally barred or without merit. (Doc. 23.) As to Ground One,
17
the Magistrate Judge determined that to the extent Petitioner was raising federal claims which
18
he did not properly present to the state court, Petitioner’s claims were procedurally barred.
19
(Id.) Reviewing the portion of Petitioner’s claims in Ground One which were not barred, the
20
Magistrate Judge concluded that the claims were without merit. (Id.) The Magistrate Judge
21
came to the same conclusions as to Petitioner’s claims in Ground Two. (Id.)
22
As to Ground Three, the Magistrate Judge determined that Petitioner’s claim of IAC
23
was procedurally barred, based on adequate and independent state law grounds. (Id.) The
24
Magistrate Judge similarly concluded that Petitioner’s claim concerning the court of appeals’
25
ruling was procedurally barred because Petitioner failed to properly present it to the state
26
courts. (Id.)
27
1
28
The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23).
-2-
1
Finally, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Petitioner’s claim in Ground Four was
2
procedurally barred because it was rejected in the state court on adequate and independent
3
state law grounds, in that Petitioner failed to raise the claim on direct appeal. (Id.)
4
5
Petitioner raises objects to the Report and Recommendations, which are identified and
discussed as follows. (Doc. 27.)
6
A.
7
Petitioner contends that his two claims in Ground Three are not procedurally barred.
8
(Doc. 27.) As to his IAC claim, Petitioner contends that he raised the claim in his first
9
petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR”) in state court, and tried to raise it again in his
10
second petition for PCR. (Id.) Petitioner’s argument fails: Petitioner’s claim was procedurally
11
defaulted because he failed to properly present this issue as a federal claim in state court, and
12
because he raised the issue for the first time in his reply brief. (Doc. 23 at 11-12.) Similarly,
13
because Petitioner defaulted his IAC claim in his first petition for PCR, the claim was found
14
procedurally defaulted during his second petition for PCR. (Id. at 12; See ARIZ. R. CRIM. P.
15
32.2(a)(3).)
Petitioner’s Objections to Procedural Bar of Ground Three Claims
16
As to his Ground Three claim that the court of appeals’ ruling clarifying his sentence
17
violated his rights under the federal constitution, Petitioner submits again that he did raise
18
the issue properly in state court, and thus that the claim should not be procedurally barred.
19
(Doc. 24.) The Court disagrees. Petitioner did not ask the appellate court for reconsideration
20
which led the PCR court to procedurally default this claim on independent and adequate state
21
law grounds when he tried to raise it later in his petition for PCR. (Doc. 23 at 12.)
22
B.
23
Petitioner contends similarly that his claim in Ground Four is not procedurally barred
24
because he properly raised the issue in his first petition for post-conviction relief. (Doc. 27.)
25
Petitioner failed to raise this sentencing issue on direct appeal which caused the PCR court
26
to default this claim in his petition for PCR on independent and adequate state law grounds.
27
(Doc. 23 at 12.)
Petitioner’s Objection to Procedural Bar of Ground Four Claim
28
-3-
1
C.
2
Finally, Petitioner contends that as to all four of his grounds for relief, state court
3
procedural defaults should be excused because he can establish cause and prejudice, and
4
alternatively can establish that a fundamental miscarriage of justice will result. (Doc. 24.)
5
Specifically, Petitioner contends that he personally did not have adequate access to records
6
from his trial for several years after his conviction, which caused the procedural defaults.
7
(Doc. 24.) Petitioner fails however to establish that sufficient objective, external factors
8
impeded his efforts to comply with the state’s procedural rules. See Smith v. Murray, 477
9
U.S. 527, 533 (1986). Thus, the Magistrate Judge properly concluded that Petitioner could
10
Petitioner’s Objections Common to All Grounds
not show sufficient cause to excuse his procedural defaults. (Doc. 23 at 13.)
11
Similarly, Petitioner fails to show that the procedural defaults would result in a
12
fundamental miscarriage of justice. To establish that a “fundamental miscarriage of justice”
13
would result, a petitioner must present evidence showing that a “constitutional violation has
14
probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent.” See Schlup v. Delo, 513
15
U.S. 298, 327 (1995). While Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge’s determination that
16
Petitioner cannot make this showing, Petitioner fails to support his objection with anything
17
beyond his conclusory allegation that he was found guilty based on perjured testimony and
18
a conspiracy involving the state and the Sheriff’s Office. (Doc. 24 at 7-8.) The Court finds
19
that the Magistrate Judge properly concluded that Petitioner has not established a
20
fundamental miscarriage of justice, in order to excuse his defaults. (Doc. 23 at 13-14.)
21
Therefore, having reviewed the legal conclusions of the Report and Recommendation
22
of the Magistrate Judge, and the objections made by Petitioner thereto, the Court finds that
23
the Magistrate Judge adequately addressed all of Petitioner’s arguments. Petitioner’s
24
objections fail to counter the factual and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which
25
mandate application of procedural bars to Petitioner’s claims.
26
Finally, the Magistrate Judge reviewed those portions of Petitioner’s Grounds One and
27
Two which were not procedurally barred, and concluded that the claims were without merit.
28
(Doc. 23 at 17-27.) Petitioner does not articulate any objection to this portion of the
-4-
1
Magistrate Judge’s factual or legal determinations, and after review the Court finds that the
2
Magistrate Judge properly concluded that those portions of Petitioner’s claims which are not
3
barred are nonetheless without merit, and thus should be denied.
4
5
Therefore, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation. (Doc. 23.)
6
CONCLUSION
7
For the reasons set forth above,
8
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation
9
10
11
of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 23).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Doc. 4) is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
12
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to
13
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because dismissal is justified by a plain
14
procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable, and
15
because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
16
DATED this 3rd day of October, 2012.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-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?