Gaddis v. Ryan et al
Filing
21
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re: 16 Report and Recommendation, 20 Report and Recommendation. That the petitioner's 12 Motion to Stay Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. That the petitioner's First Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 6) is denied and that this action is dismissed with prejudice. That no certificate of appealability shall be issued. That the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 11/13/12. (DMT)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
Matthew Caine Gaddis,
Petitioner,
11
12
13
14
vs.
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-11-01769-PHX-PGR (JFM)
ORDER
15
16
Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation on Motion to Stay
17
(Doc. 16) and Report and Recommendation on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
18
(Doc. 20), both issued by Magistrate Judge James Metcalf, notwithstanding that no
19
party has objected to either Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the
20
Magistrate Judge correctly concluded, first, that the petitioner has not established
21
that he is entitled to a stay of this action in order to exhaust state remedies, second,
22
that the petitioner’s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to
23
28 U.S.C. § 2254, must be denied because the petitioner’s federal claims are all
24
procedurally defaulted given that he failed to fairly present them to the state courts
25
and cannot now do so, he has failed to proffer any good cause to excuse the
26
procedural default, and he has not made any claim of actual innocence, and third,
1
that the petitioner is not entitled to the issuance of a certificate of appealability
2
because he has not demonstrated that jurists of reason would find it debatable
3
whether his amended petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
4
right or whether jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the Court is correct
5
in its procedural ruling. Therefore,
6
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on
7
Motion to Stay (Doc. 16) and Report and Recommendation on Petition for Writ of
8
Habeas Corpus (Doc. 20) are both accepted and adopted by the Court.
9
10
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Motion to Stay Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Doc. 12) is denied.
11
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s First Amended Petition Under
12
28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc.
13
6) is denied and that this action is dismissed with prejudice.
14
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall be issued.
15
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment
16
17
accordingly.
DATED this 13th day of November, 2012.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-2-
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?