Vasquez-Morales v. Ryan

Filing 44

ORDER ADOPTING 41 Report and Recommendation prepared by Judge Duncan and denying and dismissing with prejudice 11 Second Amended Petition. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because the dismissal of the motions is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the proceeding debatable. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 8/23/17. (LSP)

Download PDF
1 NOT FOR PUBLICATION 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Cesar Vasquez-Morales, Petitioner, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-15-01118-PHX-JJT Charles L. Ryan, 13 Respondent. 14 15 At issue is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 41) Submitted by 16 United States Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan on June 6, 2017. In the R&R, Judge 17 Duncan recommends that this Court deny and dismiss with prejudice Cesar Daniel 18 Vasquez-Morales’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 11). 19 Petitioner timely filed objections to the R&R (Doc. 42), and Respondent Charles L. Ryan 20 filed a response in support of the R&R (Doc. 43). Upon review of the R&R and the 21 parties’ submissions, the Court will adopt in whole Judge Duncan’s recommendations 22 and the underlying reasoning. 23 In the R&R, Judge Duncan classified Petitioner’s claims into three distinct 24 categories: 1) those claims that were impermissibly vague, in that they failed to meet the 25 requirement that any habeas petition must “state the facts supporting each ground”; 2) 26 claims constituting ineffective assistance of counsel; and 3) claims that the jury was 27 unfairly prejudiced by the introduction of two pieces of evidence, namely his prior felony 28 conviction and his immigration status. 1 Regarding the third category, the Court agrees with Judge Duncan’s analysis and 2 ultimate recommendation. Both the fact of Petitioner’s prior felony conviction and his 3 immigration status at the time were relevant at trial to proof of elements of the prohibited 4 possessor charges then pending against him. The fact that Petitioner entered a plea of 5 guilty to the prohibited possessor charge after commencement of trial, and after the jury 6 had heard this evidence, does not diminish the propriety of the presentation to the jury at 7 the time it occurred. 8 As to the second category – the 11 claims of action or inaction by Petitioner’s trial 9 counsel which Petitioner argues constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, and which 10 the R&R identifies and lists – Judge Duncan again correctly reasons that, after applying 11 the test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668, 687 (1984), the Court here 12 cannot say that the conclusion of the Superior Court judge on post-conviction review and 13 the Arizona Court of Appeals thereafter was both objectively deficient or caused 14 Petitioner any prejudice. 15 In reviewing the first category of Petitioner’s claims – comprising eight in all, 16 which the R&R enumerates – the Court again agrees with Judge Duncan that each of 17 these claims consists of nothing more than conclusory statements as to legal provisions, 18 and utterly fail to provide any reviewing court with facts to support those conclusions. 19 Pursuant to Rule 2(c)(2) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court cannot 20 consider these arguments, and it will not. 21 In his Objection (Doc. 42), Petitioner does not address or respond to any of the 22 above recommendations or conclusions in the R&R. Instead, Petitioner simply requests 23 the opportunity to return to state court to exhaust any unexhausted claims. First of all, as 24 pointed out in Respondent’s Response to those objections (Doc. 43), all such unexhausted 25 claims are now procedurally barred because too much time has elapsed since the state 26 court decisions Petitioner would revisit have become final. Any such effort therefore 27 would be futile. Second, even if Petitioner could return to state court to exhaust any such 28 -2- 1 claims, that would fail to address the bases for the rejection of the three categories of 2 claims as set forth above. 3 IT IS ORDERED adopting in whole the R&R prepared by Judge Duncan 4 (Doc. 41), and denying and dismissing with prejudice the Second Amended Petition 5 (Doc. 11). 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability and leave to 7 proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because the dismissal of the motions is justified by a 8 plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the proceeding debatable. 9 Dated this 23rd day of August, 2017. 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?