Ashpole #144294 v. Beresky et al

Filing 59

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation (Doc. 55 ) is accepted and adopted by the Court. Petitioner's Objections (Doc. 56 ) are overruled. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 5 ) i s denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice. Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 4/27/18. (EJA)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 James Albert Ashpole, 9 10 Petitioner, v. 11 12 13 Justin Beresky, et al., Respondents. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-15-02300-PHX-SPL ORDER 15 The Court has before it Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 5.) The Court has also received Respondents’ 17 Limited Answer (Doc. 13), Petitioner’s Response to the Limited Answer (Doc. 15), 18 Supplemental Exhibits from Respondent (Doc. 17), the first Report and Recommendation 19 of Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade and the Order of this Court. (Docs. 18, 19.) We 20 also have before us Respondents’ Supplemental Limited Answer (Doc. 53), Petitioner’s 21 Reply Response to Respondents’ Supplemental Limited Answer (Doc. 54), the Report 22 and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 55), Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 23 56), Response to the Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 57), and the Petitioner’s Notice of 24 Procedural Bar. (Doc. 58.) 25 Petitioner argues in Ground One that the aggravated sentence has violated his right 26 to a jury trial under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). (Doc. 5 at 6, 14-16.) In 27 Ground Two, Petitioner argues one of the aggravating factors, the existence of prior 28 convictions, had been improper because those convictions were too remote under Arizona 1 Law. (Id. at 7, 16-17.) Respondents argue the petition must be dismissed with prejudice 2 because both habeas claims are technically exhausted and precluded under the 3 independent and adequate state-ground doctrine. Additionally, Respondents argue 4 Petitioner does not allege a basis to excuse the procedural defaults, which he could not 5 otherwise have established given he had been aware of the factual basis of both claims 6 prior to filing his PCR petition. 7 Petitioner‘s claims are procedurally barred. (Doc. 55.) (Docs. 13, 17, 53.) Judge Bade concluded the 8 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 9 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). When a party files 10 a timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the 11 R&R that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection 12 requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See 13 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 14 636(b)(1). It follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no 15 specific objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. 16 Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is 17 judicial economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of 18 evidence or arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and 19 the Court’s decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 20 615, 621-622 (9th Cir. 2000). 21 Petitioner has presented the same arguments that he initially made in his Petition 22 for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 5, 15, 54.) This Court has, nonetheless, undertaken an 23 extensive review of the sufficiently developed record and the objections to the findings 24 and recommendations in the very detailed R&R, without the need for an evidentiary 25 hearing or appointing counsel for the Petitioner. After conducting a de novo review of the 26 issues and objections, the Court reaches the same conclusions reached by Judge Bade. 27 Specifically, the Court finds the Petitioner claims are procedurally barred. 28 Having carefully reviewed the record, the Petitioner has not shown that he is 2 1 entitled to habeas relief. The R&R will be adopted in full. Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED: 3 1. 4 That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 55) is accepted and adopted by the Court; 5 2. That the Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 56) are overruled; 6 3. That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 5) is denied and this 7 8 9 10 action is dismissed with prejudice; 4. That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable; and 11 5. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 12 Dated this 27th day of April, 2018. 13 14 Honorable Steven P. Logan United States District Judge 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?