Jones v. Ryan et al
Filing
19
ORDER AND DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY - The 15 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is accepted. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment denying and dismissing Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action. A Certificate of Appealability is denied. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 5/04/2016. (ATD)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Gregory Keith Jones,
10
Petitioner,
11
v.
12
Charles L. Ryan; Attorney General of the
State of Arizona,
13
14
No. CV-15-00883-PHX-NVW (JFM)
ORDER
and
DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY
Respondents.
15
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
16
Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf (Doc. 15) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of
17
Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that
18
the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the
19
parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 73 (citing Rule
20
72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; See also Rule 8(b), Rules Governing Section
21
2254 Proceedings.) Petitioner filed objections on April 5, 2016 (Doc. 17).
22
The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and
23
Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that
24
the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and
25
Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The Court agrees with the
26
Magistrate Judge’s determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the
27
meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner’s objections. See 28
28
1
2
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”).
3
4
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (Doc. 15) is accepted.
5
6
7
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying
and dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action.
8
9
10
Having considered the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability from the order
denying Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, IT IS ORDERED that a
Certificate of Appealability is denied because:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
(A)
re Brady claim); (2) the portion of Ground 3(b) (ineffectiveness re prejudicial evidence
on dismissed count) which relates to trial counsel; (3) Ground 4(a) (ineffectiveness re
plea agreement); (4) Ground 4(d) (ineffectiveness re testimonial objections); and (5)
Ground 4(g) (ineffectiveness re appeal on motion in limine). Petitioner was procedurally
barred on independent and adequate state grounds from asserting: (1) Ground 1(a)
(privacy); and (2) Ground 2(a) (Brady claim). Petitioner has failed to show cause and
prejudice or actual innocence to avoid the effects of his procedural defaults and
procedural bars;
20
21
22
23
24
25
Petitioner has procedurally defaulted on: (1) Ground 2(b) (ineffectiveness
(B)
Petitioner has failed to show a substantial constitutional question on: (1)
Grounds 1(b) (Franks claim); (2) Ground 3(a) (prejudicial evidence re dismissed count);
(3) the portion of Ground 3(b) (ineffectiveness re prejudicial evidence on dismissed
count) which relates to appellate counsel; (4) Ground 4(b) (ineffectiveness re failure to
/ / /
/ / /
26
27
28
-2
1
2
3
4
present a defense); (5) Ground 4(c) (ineffectiveness re discovery); (6) Ground 4(e)
(ineffectiveness re SDO allegation); and (7) Ground 4(f) (ineffectiveness re privacy); and
(C)
Jurists would not reasonably disagree on these questions.
Dated: May 4, 2016.
5
6
7
Neil V. Wake
United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
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?