Gonzalez v. Schriro, et., al.

Filing 30

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 22 Report and Recommendations.The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is Denied and this action is hereby Dismissed. A Certificate of Appealability shall issue; Judgment is entered.. Signed by Senior Judge Frank R Zapata on 6/19/2012.(JKM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Robert Gonzalez, Petitioner, 10 11 vs. 12 Charles Ryan, et al., 13 Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 08-658-TUC-FRZ (DTF) ORDER 14 15 16 Before the Court for consideration is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 17 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Petitioner Robert Gonzalez, through the representation of 18 counsel, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, recommending the 19 dismissal of the Petition. 20 Petitioner, convicted in Pima County Superior Court of two counts of attempted first- 21 degree murder, four counts of aggravated assault, two counts of endangerment, and one count 22 of disorderly conduct, following two separate trials on severed counts, was sentenced in state 23 court to concurrent and consecutive sentences totaling a term of 36-years of imprisonment. 24 The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus sets forth 17 claims for relief. 25 This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro, pursuant to the 26 provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Rule 72, Fed.R.Civ.P., and Local Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of 27 the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, for 28 further proceedings and report and recommendation. 1 Magistrate Judge Ferraro issued his Report and Recommendation, recommending that 2 the Court enter an order dismissing the Petition for Writ of Habeas based on his findings that 3 “Claims 1, 4, 5, 6 (as to [precluded witness] Duran), 10, 12, 14, 15(e), (h) and (i), 16(A) (4), 4 (7)(a) and (8), 17(A), and 17(B)(1) do not warrant relief under the AEDPA1 and should be 5 dismissed on the merits. [And further] Petitioner’s request for discovery and an evidentiary 6 hearing as to Claims 4 and 16(A)(7)(a) ... be denied.” 7 The Magistrate Judge further recommends dismissal of Claims 2, 3, 6 (as to precluded 8 witnesses Escusa and Canez), 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15 (a) to (d), (f) and (g), 16(A)(1), (2), (3), (5), 9 (6) and (7)(b), 16(B), 17(B)(2), and 17(C), on the basis the claims are procedurally defaulted. 10 The Report and Recommendation sets forth the factual and procedural history of 11 Petitioner’s state court proceedings and convictions at issue and provides a thorough analysis 12 of the claims and legal standards at issue. 13 Petitioner filed an exhaustive Objection to the Report and Recommendation of 14 Magistrate Ferraro pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), challenging the substantive and procedural 15 findings set forth therein. 16 The Court finds, after consideration of the matters presented and an independent 17 review of the record herein, including Petitioner’s detailed Objection to the Report and 18 Recommendation, Respondents’ response and Petitioner’s reply thereto, that the Petition 19 should be denied and this action be dismissed in accordance with the recommendations set 20 forth therein. 21 Petitioner’s assertion that he “is aware that many times the District Court does in fact 22 adopt the recommendations of the Magistrate notwithstanding the clear and cogent objections 23 made by Petitioner on such Habeas Corpus petitions” is unfounded and disingenuous. 24 Notwithstanding the foregoing, Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability will be 25 granted. 26 1 27 28 Petitioner’s habeas claims are governed by the applicable provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2068 (1997). -2- 1 A court “must resolve doubts about the propriety of a COA in the petitioner’s favor.” 2 Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002)(citing Lambright v. Stewart, 220 3 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The Court “may issue a COA for any issue with 4 respect to which petitioner makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 5 right.” Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This showing can be established by demonstrating that 6 the issues are “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 7 529 U.S. 473, 484, S.Ct. (2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4, S.Ct. 8 (1983)). The Court finds that the issues presented advance the requisite showing for a COA 9 to issue. Accordingly, 10 IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. 11 22] is hereby ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law 12 by this Court; 13 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and this action is hereby DISMISSED; 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability shall issue; 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment be entered accordingly. 17 18 DATED this 19th day of June, 2012. 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?