Garfias-Ortega #230786 v. Ryan et al
Filing
22
ORDER Overruling Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation 19 . FURTHER ORDERED Adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court 16 . FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition fo r Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied and dismissed with prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED denying the Certificate of Appealability. The denial of the Petition 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 Judge John J Tuchi on 7/15/14. (MAP)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Miguel Angel Garfias-Ortega,
10
Petitioner,
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV-13-01450-PHX-JJT
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14
15
16
Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on July 16, 2013 (Doc. 1).
17
Respondents filed an Answer on October 1, 2013 (Doc. 11), arguing that, for the vast
18
majority of claims Petitioner raised, relief was barred either by Petitioner’s failure to
19
exhaust his federal claims in state court or because he had procedurally defaulted on
20
them, and the few remaining claims not barred or defaulted lacked merit. Petitioner filed
21
a Reply in support of his Petition on October 30, 2013 (Doc. 14).
22
On April 22, 2014, the Magistrate Judge made her Report and Recommendation
23
(Doc. 16) that the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge
24
also recommended denial of a Certificate of Appealability because the dismissal of the
25
Petition was justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the
26
procedural ruling debatable, or because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of
27
the denial of a constitutional right.
28
1
On May 28, 2014, Petitioner filed timely written objections (Doc. 19) that did not
2
address any error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis of timeliness and procedural default
3
or lack of merits and failure to show prejudice, but reiterated and re-argued his view of
4
the facts of the case at all levels. Respondents filed a brief response to Petitioner's
5
objections on June 12, 2014 (Doc. 20).
6
Upon de novo review, the Court is in agreement with the Report and
7
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Court overrules Petitioner’s Objections to
8
the Report and Recommendation, including his objection to the recommendation of
9
denial of a Certificate of Appealability.
10
Petitioner asserts a multitude of claims, which could be counted and numbered
11
many different ways. For the sake of consistency and ease of reference, the Court will
12
use the numbering convention and claim classification system initiated by Respondent
13
and adopted by the Magistrate Judge. That system classifies Petitioner's challenges to his
14
conviction and sentence as claims one through 11, with claims one and eight having
15
multiple subparts.
16
For the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation,
17
claims 1(c) and 2 through 11 are barred from federal habeas review by Petitioner’s failure
18
to exhaust state court review or by procedural default. The Magistrate Judge further
19
concluded correctly after analysis that Petitioner failed to establish a "fundamental
20
miscarriage of justice" or "cause and prejudice" to overcome the procedural bar of default
21
on any of these claims.
22
Petitioner did properly exhaust claims 1(a) and 1(b) in state court, and both are
23
thus properly before this Court on habeas review. However, as the Magistrate Judge
24
properly concluded after analysis, the state sentencing court's errors in claims 1(a) and
25
1(b) resulted in no prejudice to Petitioner.
26
27
IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 19).
28
-2-
1
2
3
4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court (Doc. 16).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus is denied and dismissed with prejudice.
5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Certificate of Appealability. The
6
denial of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not
7
find the procedural ruling debatable, and because Petitioner has not made a substantial
8
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
9
Dated this 15th day of July, 2014.
10
11
12
Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
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?