Pinzon v. Ryan et al
Filing
16
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 12 Magistrate Judge Bade's Report and Recommendation. The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 4 ) is DENIED and dismissed with prejudice. A Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in for ma pauperis are DENIED because the dismissal of the Amended Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists could not find the procedural ruling debatable. Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 6/20/16. (EJA)
1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Jose Manuel Pinzon,
Petitioner,
10
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV-14-08244-PCT-DJH
Charles L Ryan, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14
15
This matter is before the Court on pro se Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ
16
of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 4) and the Report and
17
Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade (Doc.
18
12). The R & R includes an accurate and complete recitation of the necessary factual and
19
procedural background. (Doc. 12 at 1:21-5:12). The R & R also correctly sets forth the
20
legal principles governing the threshold issue of whether a petitioner has exhausted
21
available state court remedies. (Id. at 5:13-7:26). After a thorough and sound analysis,
22
the Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner’s claims were procedurally barred, and that
23
Petitioner did not establish a basis to overcome that bar.
24
recommends denial of the Petition. Petitioner filed timely objections (Doc. 13). The
25
Court now rules as follows.
26
....
27
....
28
....
The Magistrate Judge thus
1
I. Standard of Review
2
The Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
3
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which” a Petitioner objects. 28
4
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must
5
determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly
6
objected to.”); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (same).
7
Conversely, the relevant provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §
8
636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not
9
the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (emphasis added);
10
see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo
11
review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R, [Reyna–
12
Tapia,] 328 F.3d [at] 1121 . . . (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates
13
Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the
14
parties themselves accept as correct”)[.]”) Likewise, it is well-settled that “’failure to
15
object to a magistrate judge's factual findings waives the right to challenge those
16
findings[.]’” Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Miranda
17
v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted)
18
(footnote omitted)).
19
II. Analysis
20
Although designated as “objections,” Petitioner is not actually objecting to any of
21
the R & R’s factual findings or legal conclusions. Thus, as to the factual findings,
22
Petitioner has waived any objection thereto. See Bastidas, 791 F.3d at 1159 (citations
23
omitted). Petitioner’s objections are conspicuously silent on the determinative issue of
24
issue of procedural default. In fact, it is readily apparent that, with one exception which
25
the Court will address next, Petitioner is simply reasserting most of the grounds for relief
26
found in his amended petition. Further, instead of objecting to any aspect of the R & R,
27
Petitioner is seeking to have this Court address the merits, despite the Magistrate Judge’s
28
findings of procedural default and failure to overcome that bar.
-2-
Hence, because
1
Petitioner makes no objections at all to the R & R, this Court is not required to review the
2
R & R. Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R & R and agrees with its sounding
3
reasoning, findings and recommendations. The Court will, therefore, accept the R & R
4
and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may accept,
5
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
6
magistrate judge.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same).
7
The Court recognizes, as just alluded to, that Petitioner’s objections seem to
8
include a new claim for habeas relief. Petitioner contends that his “pretrial/trial counsel .
9
. . fail[ed] to provide him with a reasonable assessment of the probable outcome of his
10
trial[.]” (Doc. 13 at 3). Speculating and with the advantage of hindsight, Petitioner
11
further claims that had his counsel provided him with the foregoing, Petitioner “would
12
have accepted the State’s plea agreement.” (Id.) (citation omitted). Petitioner’s amended
13
petition does include several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, but not this
14
particular one. This new claim for habeas relief was, understandably, not addressed in
15
the R & R. Because Petitioner is improperly raising this new unexhausted claim in his
16
objections, the Court gives no credence to such a claim and adheres to its view that the
17
Magistrate Judge correctly recommended denial of this amended petition.
18
III. Conclusion
19
Accordingly,
20
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that that Magistrate Judge Bade’s R & R (Doc. 12)
21
is accepted and adopted as an Order of this Court.
22
23
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Doc. 4) is DENIED and dismissed with prejudice.
24
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to
25
proceed in forma pauperis are DENIED because the dismissal of the Amended Petition
26
is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists could not find the procedural
27
ruling debatable.
28
....
-3-
1
2
3
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action
and enter judgment accordingly.
Dated this 20th day of June, 2016.
4
5
6
7
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
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?