Pedrin v. Attorney General of the State of Arizona et al

Filing 37

ORDER ADOPTING 31 Report and Recommendations, Dismissing Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeaus Corpus (Doc. 24), Motion for Certificate of Appealability (Doc. 36)is DENIED; Clerk of Court to enter Judgment; Court declines to issue certificate of appealability and denies leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Signed by Judge David C Bury on 9/10/12. (SMBE)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 12 13 Alex Joseph Pedrin, ) ) Petitioner, ) v. ) ) Charles L. Ryan, et al., ) ) Respondent. ) ) _______________________________________ ) 16 17 18 19 20 21 ORDER This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas T. Ferraro, pursuant to Rules 14 15 CV 11-150-TUC-DCB-DTF of Practice for the United States District Court, District of Arizona (Local Rules), Rule (Civil) 72.1(a). On June 20, 2012, Magistrate Judge Ferraro issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R). He recommends that this Court dismiss the Petition. (Doc. 31: R&R.) The Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R&R as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court and dismisses the Petition because Claims 2(b) and 3(c) are procedurally defaulted and Claims 1(a), 1(b)/3(a)1 and 2(a)/3(b) do not warrant relief on the merits. STANDARD OF REVIEW 22 The duties of the district court in connection with a R&R by a Magistrate Judge 23 are set forth in Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 24 The district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 25 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 26 Where the parties object to a R&R, “‘[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo 27 28 1 The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that claims 1(b) and 3(a) are essentially the same and Claims 2(a) and 3(b) have the same factual premise. Like the Magistrate Judge, this Court treats these combined claims as Claim 1(b)/3(a) and Claim 2(a)/3(b). 1 determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made.’” Thomas v. Arn, 2 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)); Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 3 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th 4 Cir.2003) (en banc). To the extent that no objection has been made, arguments to the 5 contrary have been waived. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (objections are 6 waived if they are not filed within fourteen days of service of the R&R), see also McCall v. 7 Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report waives 8 right to do so on appeal); Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (citing Campbell 9 v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974) (when no timely objection is 10 filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in 11 order to accept the recommendation)). 12 The parties were sent copies of the R&R and instructed that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 13 § 636(b)(1), they had 14 days to file written objections. See also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (party 14 objecting to the recommended disposition has fourteen (14) days to file specific, written 15 objections). The Petitioner sought and was granted an extension of time. He filed his 16 Objection on July 27, 2012. The Court has considered the Objection and the documents 17 considered by the Magistrate Judge, which are the Second Amended Petition, the Limited 18 Answer and Answer on the Motion to Suppress. 19 OBJECTIONS 20 The Petitioner asserts the Magistrate Judge should have concluded the Arizona 21 appellate court’s application of Supreme Court law was objectively unreasonable when it 22 found the trial court did not err in denying his request to disqualify and remove jurors 23 Strassman and Bracamonte for being exposed to extraneous evidence during the trial. The 24 Petitioner refers to media coverage about defendant’s attempted escape during the trial. 25 26 27 As the Magistrate Judge’s R&R reflects the state appellate court made a searching inquiry into the factual background of this claim, Claim 1(b)/3(a). The trial court took steps to individually question each juror that was exposed to the media about the Petitioner, and 28 -2- 1 neither Strassman nor Bracamonte expressed any partiality and assured the judge they could 2 decide the case based on the trial evidence alone. The appellate court found that the trial 3 judge was best suited to assess the jurors’ credibility when they affirmed they could set aside 4 the news coverage, which was primarily limited to information about his attempted escape, 5 and decide the case solely on the trial evidence. See Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 799 6 (1975) (explaining a juror need not be completely ignorant of the facts nor totally impartial, 7 it is enough if a juror can set this aside and render the verdict based solely on the trial 8 evidence). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the Arizona Court 9 of Appeal’s denial of this claim was not an objectively unreasonable application of Supreme 10 Court law. (R&R at 11-12.) CONCLUSION 11 12 After a de novo review of the issues raised in Defendant's objections, this 13 Court agrees with the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the Magistrate Judge 14 in his R&R for dismissing the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 15 2254. The Court adopts it, and for the reasons stated in the R&R, the Court dismisses the 16 Petition. Accordingly, 17 IT IS ORDERED that after a full and independent review of the record, in respect 18 to the objections, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 31) is accepted 19 and adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court. 20 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 24) is DISMISSED. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment accordingly. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Certificate of Appealability (Doc. 36) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a -3- 1 certificate of appealability and denies leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because 2 the Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. 3 DATED this 10th day of September, 2012. 4 5 6 7 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?