Velasquez #173685 v. Ryan
Filing
41
ORDER ADOPTING 38 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The Petitioner's Objections (Doc. 39 ) are overruled. The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 12 ) is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice. A C ertificate 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 shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 10/31/17. (LSP)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
Michael Rene Velasquez,
9
10
Petitioner,
v.
11
12
13
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
Respondents.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-16-01278-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. 12), and Respondents’ Answer. (Doc. 35.) We also
17
have before us the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate
18
Judge John Z. Boyle (Doc. 38), recommending denial of the Petition, Petitioner’s
19
Objections (Doc. 39), and the Respondents’ Response to the Petitioner’s Objections to
20
the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 40.) Upon review of the R&R and the parties’
21
submissions, the Court will adopt in whole Judge Boyle’s recommendations and the
22
underlying reasoning.
23
The Petitioner raises 2 grounds for relief in his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
24
In Ground 1, the Petitioner argues ineffective assistance of counsel because he believes
25
he was coerced by detectives to admit guilt. (Doc. 12.) In Ground 2, the Petitioner argues
26
mitigating circumstances and that he filed a timely notice of post-conviction relief. (Id.)
27
Judge Boyle concluded the Petitioner’s claims are untimely. (Doc. 38 at 1-8.)
28
Additionally, the magistrate judge further concluded that the Petitioner did not exercise
1
“reasonable diligence” by waiting an additional 30 months after he received notice to
2
resend the PCR notice. (Id.)
3
In his Objections to the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner has failed to point
4
out specific objections to Judge Boyle’s findings and recommendations in the R&R.
5
(Doc. 39 at 1-3.) The Petitioner has repeated the same arguments from his initial Habeas
6
Petition. (Doc. 12.)
7
A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
8
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). When a party files
9
a timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the
10
R&R that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection
11
requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See
12
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. §
13
636(b)(1). It follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no
14
specific objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v.
15
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is
16
judicial economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of
17
evidence or arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and
18
the Court’s decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d
19
615, 621-622 (9th Cir. 2000).
20
The Court has nonetheless undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently
21
developed record and the deficient objections to the findings and recommendations in the
22
very detailed R&R, without the need for an evidentiary hearing. After conducting a de
23
novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches the same conclusions reached
24
by Judge Boyle. Specifically, the Court finds the Petitioner was sentenced years prior to
25
the filing of his Petition and no grounds exist that would entitle the Petitioner to equitable
26
tolling. (Doc. 35-1, Ex. F, G, J, M, O, and W.) Additionally, the Court finds the claims
27
of the Petitioner are untimely and that no extraordinary circumstances prevented him
28
from filing his claims. Furthermore, the Court finds he is not entitled to equitable tolling.
2
1
Having carefully reviewed the record, the Petitioner has not shown that he is
2
entitled to habeas relief. Finding none of Petitioner’s objections have merit, the R&R
3
will be adopted in full. Accordingly,
4
IT IS ORDERED:
5
1.
6
That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 38) is
accepted and adopted by the Court;
7
2.
That the Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 39) are overruled;
8
3.
That the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 12) is denied
9
10
and this action is dismissed with prejudice;
4.
That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis
11
on appeal are denied because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain
12
procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable; and
13
5.
That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.
14
Dated this 31st day of October, 2017.
15
16
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge
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?