Hadley #268913 v. Ryan et al

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine's R&R (Doc. 19 ) is accepted. Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Docs. 1 , 4 ) is denied. A certificate of appealability is denied because Petiti oner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Clerk is directed to terminate this action. See document for complete details. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 10/17/2019. (RMV)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Michael Wayne Hadley,

10

Petitioner,

11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV18-8076-PCT-DGC (DMF)

Charles Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

Michael Wayne Hadley has filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

16

Docs. 1, 4. Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine issued a report recommending the Court

17

deny the petition (“R&R”). Doc. 19. Petitioner filed an objection, and the government

18

responded. Docs. 20, 22. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will accept the R&R

19

and deny the petition.

20

I.

Background.

21

Petitioner was indicted in the Yavapi County Superior Court on a series of counts

22

related to the sexual abuse of his stepdaughter. Doc. 19 at 2. A jury found him guilty on

23

one count of attempted molestation of a child, three counts of sexual conduct with a minor,

24

one count of sexual abuse, and one count of continuous sexual abuse. Id. at 3. He was

25

sentenced to 80 years in prison. Id. at 3.

26

Petitioner raises nine grounds for relief in his habeas petition. Docs. 1, 4, 19 at 7-8.

27

Judge Fine recommends denying relief on grounds one through eight as procedurally

28

defaulted and ground nine on the merits. Doc. 19 at 13-26. Petitioner objects to Judge

1

Fine’s recommendation to deny relief on grounds one and three and her finding that

2

Petitioner procedurally defaulted his claims without excuse. Doc. 20. The Court “may

3

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

4

magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

5

II.

Discussion.

6

1.

7

In his objection, Petitioner alleges defects in his state court proceedings and restates

8

the ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”) claims he asserted in his habeas petition. He

9

argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to overcome the trial court’s evidentiary

10

rulings and for failing to challenge Arizona’s child molestation statute as unconstitutional.

11

Docs. 20 at 5-6; 20-1 at 4-6.

12

Petitioner’s arguments as objections to Judge Fine’s recommendation to deny relief on

13

grounds one and three. Doc. 19 at 13, 17. The Court will review these recommendations

14

de novo. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

Objection Regarding Grounds One and Three.

Although not entirely clear, the Court will construe

15

Petitioner first argues that his trial counsel failed to overcome the trial court’s

16

evidentiary rulings regarding certain evidence. Doc. 20 at 5-6. This evidence was

17

presented in ground one of his petition, and includes taped conversations that D.W., the

18

victim in this case, had with an adult male named Brian Mick; D.W.’s Child Protective

19

Services reports; and D.W.’s psychological reports from Kansas. Id. at 1-8; Doc. 19 at 6-

20

7. Petitioner argues that Judge Fine “overlooked” his counsel’s failure to get this evidence

21

introduced as part of the “many errors which undermined the proper functioning of the

22

trial.” Doc. 20 at 1.

23

Based upon a review of the record, including Petitioner’s pleadings on direct appeal

24

(Doc. 15-11 at 132, 166), his first post-conviction relief petition (Doc. 15-5 at 62), his

25

petition for review from the denial of post-conviction relief (Doc. 15-12 at 2), the Arizona

26

Court of Appeals’ memorandum decisions denying relief in both state-court proceedings

27

(Doc. 15-11 at 183), and the Arizona Supreme Court’s order summarily denying review on

28

direct appeal (Doc. 15-11 at 181), the Court finds that Petitioner never fairly presented this
-2-

1

IAC argument in state court. Although Petitioner challenged the trial court’s rulings on

2

the evidence at issue here, he did not argue that his counsel was ineffective in failing to

3

overcome those rulings. See, e.g., Doc. 15-11 at 135, 168; Doc. 15-12 at 3; see Baldwin v.

4

Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 32-33 (2004) (holding that to be fairly presented, a claim must include

5

a statement of the operative facts and the specific federal legal theory). Accordingly, these

6

claims were never properly presented in state court.

7

Petitioner also contends that his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge

8

Arizona’s child molestation statute as unconstitutional. Doc. 21-1 at 6. But Petitioner

9

failed to exhaust this claim in state court. Doc. 19 at 17. Although he did raise the claim

10

in a successive post-conviction relief petition (Doc. 15-12 at 44-49, 58-63), he withdrew

11

the petition and moved instead to proceed with a habeas petition before this Court (Id.

12

at 77). This claim is thus procedurally defaulted.1

13

Arizona’s procedural rules bar review of claims not raised on direct appeal or in

14

prior Rule 32 post-conviction proceedings. See, e.g., Stewart v. Smith, 536 U.S. 856, 860

15

(2002). Because a federal court cannot grant habeas relief on claims that a state prisoner

16

never properly presented to the state courts, the Court will accept Judge Fine’s

17

recommendation and will reject Petitioner’s grounds one and three arguments as

18

procedurally defaulted.

19

U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991).

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), (c); Duncan v. Henry, 513

20

2.

21

Petitioner also argues that his due process rights were violated because he was

22

denied funds for an expert witness to question D.W. and refute the state’s expert. Doc. 20

23

at 12. But Plaintiff never requested the appointment of an expert in the trial court (Doc. 15-

24

1 at 4-14), nor did he raise the issue on either direct appeal or his post-conviction relief

Argument Regarding Denial of Funds for a Defense Expert.

25
26
27
28

1

Even if Petitioner had raised this argument in state court, it would fail here because
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the case on which he bases his argument. See
May v. Ryan, 766 Fed. Appx. 505, 506-07 (9th Cir. 2019) (“Because we do not reach the
constitutionality of the Arizona child molestation statute, we vacate the district court’s
judgment in that respect.”).
-3-

1

proceedings (Docs. 15-11 at 132, 166; 15-5 at 62; 15-12 at 2). Because Petitioner failed to

2

exhaust this claim in state court, it is procedurally defaulted.

3

3.

4

Petitioner also generally objects to Judge Fine’s finding that he failed to establish

5

either cause or prejudice for his defaults. Doc. 20 at 14. Petitioner argues there is cause

6

and prejudice based on his retention of a fraudulent law firm. Doc. 20-1 at 1, 10. Petitioner

7

claims that this law firm deceived him into believing that it was working on his case for

8

approximately two years. Id. at 1-2. But Petitioner did not retain this firm until after he

9

had procedurally defaulted the objections he makes here. See Doc. 1 at 11. The earliest

10

correspondence with this firm that Petitioner presents is from June 2017. Doc. 20-1 at 11.

11

Petitioner’s direct appeal concluded with the Arizona Supreme Court denying review on

12

March 20, 2013 (Doc. 15-11 at 181), and his post-conviction proceeding concluded with

13

the Arizona Court of Appeals denying relief on August 2, 2016 (Doc. 15-12 at 34).

14

Because Petitioner did not retain this firm until after he failed to present his claims in state

15

court, the Court will accept Judge Fine’s recommendation that there was no excuse for his

16

procedural defaults.

Objection Regarding the Cause and Prejudice Determination.

17

4.

18

Petitioner makes several other arguments regarding perceived shortcomings of his

19

trial (Doc. 20 at 9-12), but makes no direct objection to any specific portion of Judge Fine’s

20

R&R. The Court is required to review only the “portion of the magistrate judge's

21

disposition to which specific written objection has been made[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2);

22

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Objections that do not explain the source of

23

alleged error, but instead object generally to the entirety of a magistrate judge’s report,

24

have “the same effect as would a failure to object.” Warling v. Ryan, No. CV 12-01396-

25

PHX-DGC (SPL), 2013 WL 5276367, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2013) (quoting Howard v.

26

Sec’y of HHS, 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)). The Court accordingly will accept the

27

remainder of Judge Fine’s recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ.

28

P. 72(b)(3); Thomas, 474 U.S at 149; Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

Other Objections.

-4-

1

Petitioner also makes two arguments that were never presented in his habeas

2

petition. First, he alleges prosecutorial misconduct because the trial court prosecutor

3

claimed that Petitioner only had sex with his wife once or twice per year (Doc. 20-1 at 3)

4

and did not “contribute to family income” (Id.). Second, Petitioner argues that he never

5

admitted to having sexual relations with D.W. (Doc. 20 at 12-13). A party is not entitled

6

to a review of arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and

7

the Court’s decision to consider them is discretionary.

8

F.3d 742, 744 (9th Cir. 2002); United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621 (9th Cir. 2000),

9

cert. denied, 534 U.S. 831 (2001). Petitioner makes no effort to explain why he did not

10

raise these arguments in either his original habeas petition (Doc. 1) or its supplement

11

(Doc. 4). In its discretion, the Court will not consider these new arguments.

See Brown v. Roe, 279

12

IT IS ORDERED:

13

1. Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine’s R&R (Doc. 19) is accepted.

14

2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Docs. 1, 4) is denied.

15

3. A certificate of appealability is denied because Petitioner has not made a

16

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required by

17

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

18

4. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action.

19

Dated this 17th day of October, 2019.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-