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)
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?