Hoffman v. Ryan et al

Filing 36

ORDER ADOPTING 32 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice. A Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal ar e denied because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot 17 Petitioner's Motion to Grant Access to DVDs and granting 35 Petitioner's Motion Requesting a Ruling on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Clerk shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 12/4/17. (LSP)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

Michael James Hoffman,

9
10

Petitioner,
v.

11
12

Charles L. Ryan, et al,
Respondents.

13
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-16-03598-PHX-SPL
ORDER

15

The Court has before it Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

16

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1), Petitioner’s Motion to Allow Petitioner Access to each DVD

17

in his Trial File (Doc. 17), Respondents’ Answer (Doc. 18), and Petitioner’s Reply in

18

Support of the Petition for Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 25.) We also have before us the Report

19

and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf (Doc.

20

32), Petitioner’s Response to the Report and recommendation1 (Doc. 33), Respondents’

21

Response to the Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 34),

22

and Petitioner’s Motion Requesting a Ruling on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

23

(Doc. 35.)

24

Petitioner was indicted May 12, 2012, on seven counts of sexual assault, four

25

counts of kidnapping, two counts of sexual abuse, one count of attempted sexual assault,

26

and one count of public sexual indecency. (Doc. 18, Ex. P.) The charges were based on

27
28

1

The Court considers this document the Petitioner’s Objections.

1

events that occurred between October 2004 and September 2011. (Id.) At trial, four

2

victims testified that the Petitioner forced them into his vehicle and sexually assaulted

3

them. (Id.) The jury convicted the Petitioner of all but one count and the Petitioner was

4

subsequently sentenced to 69 years of imprisonment. (Id.)

5

The Petitioner raised 20 grounds for relief in his Petition for Writ of Habeas

6

Corpus. (Doc. 1.) Upon review of the R&R and the parties’ submissions, the Court will

7

adopt in whole Judge Metcalf’s recommendations and the underlying reasoning. Judge

8

Metcalf correctly concluded the Petitioner’s claims merited no relief and that the Petition

9

for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 32.)

10

In his Objections to the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner repeats the same

11

arguments that were laid out in the Petition. (Doc. 1.) Additionally, the Petitioner

12

continues to articulate his version of the facts as he recalls them. (Doc. 33.)

13

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

14

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). When a party files

15

a timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the

16

R&R that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection

17

requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See

18

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. §

19

636(b)(1). It follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no

20

specific objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v.

21

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is

22

judicial economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of

23

evidence or arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and

24

the Court’s decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d

25

615, 621-622 (9th Cir. 2000).

26

The Court finds that although the Petitioner filed objections (Doc. 33), he failed to

27

provide specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R.

28

Nonetheless, the Court has undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently developed
2

1

record and the objections to the findings and recommendations in the very detailed R&R,

2

without the need for an evidentiary hearing.

3

After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches

4

the same conclusions reached by Judge Metcalf. Specifically, the Court finds the claims

5

are not cognizable on habeas and/or are procedurally barred.

6

Having carefully reviewed the record, the Petitioner has not shown that he is

7

entitled to habeas relief. Finding none of Petitioner’s objections have merit, the R&R

8

will be adopted in full. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:

9

1.

10
11

That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 32) is

accepted and adopted by the Court;

12

2.

That the Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 33) are overruled;

13

3.

That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied and this

14

action is dismissed with prejudice;
4.

15

That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis

16

on appeal are denied because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain

17

procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable;
5.

19
20
21

That Petitioner’s Motion to Grant Access to DVDs (Doc. 17) is denied as

6.

18

That Petitioner’s Motion Requesting a Ruling on the Petition for Writ of

moot;

Habeas Corpus (Doc. 35) is granted; and

22

7.

That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

23

Dated this 4th day of December, 2017.

24
25

Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge

26
27
28
3