Starr v. Baca et al
Filing
15
ORDER ADOPTING 13 Report and Recommendation, with the modifications discussd in this Order. Petitioners Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in this matter, and close its file. Signed by Judge Jennifer G Zipps on 11/4/13. (SMBE)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Stanley Wade Starr,
No. CV-11-00395-TUC-JGZ (JR)
Petitioner,
10
11
v.
12
ORDER
Antonio Baca, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14
On August 23, 2013, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau issued a Report and
15
Recommendation (Doc. 13) in which she recommended dismissing Petitioner’s Petition
16
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody. (Doc.
17
1.) The R&R provided that any party could file written objections within fourteen (14)
18
days after being served with a copy of the R&R. On August 29, 2013, Respondents filed
19
a “Limited Objection to Report and Recommendation” (Doc. 14) requesting that the
20
Court adopt all but one paragraph of the R&R. (Doc. 14, p. 1.) Respondents’ objection
21
states that “[a]lthough the Magistrate Judge correctly analyzes Petitioner’s claims, the
22
first paragraph on page 6 lists claims that do not appear in his Petition for Writ of Habeas
23
Corpus.” (Id.) Respondents’ limited objection requests that this Court correct page six
24
and thereafter dismiss the Petition with prejudice.
25
26
27
28
After an independent review of the record, the Court adopts the R&R, except as
indicated in this Order.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. §
1
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for clear error the unobjected-to
2
portions of the R&R. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999);
3
see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).
PROCEDURAL AND FACTURAL BACKGROUND
4
5
Petitioner’s Petition raises six claims for relief and contains one subheading
6
entitled “5.2 Ineffective Assistance of Counsel” that itself lists six allegations of
7
ineffectiveness.1 (Doc. 1.) In Claim One, Petitioner argues that the prosecutor violated
8
his First Amendment rights to free speech and to peaceably assemble by selectively
9
prosecuting him due to his affiliation with the “constitutionalists.” His claim also alleges
10
grand jury manipulation due to this same alleged “constitutionalist” bias. Claim Two
11
alleges that the prosecutor violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable
12
searches and seizures by filing an insufficient indictment without probable cause because
13
the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence regarding “Notices of Invalid Liens.” In
14
Claim Three, Petitioner argues that the state violated his Fifth Amendment Double
15
Jeopardy rights by pursuing both criminal and civil sanctions against him. Claim Four
16
alleges that the Prosecutor violated Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy, fair,
17
and public trial by denying him an informed jury and by failing to disclose exculpatory
18
evidence.2
19
Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by imposing consecutive
20
sentences.
21
misconduct as violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal
22
protection.
23
misconduct, and an alleged judicial conflict of interest and prejudice.
24
Petitioner’s subheading claim “5.2 Ineffective Assistance of Counsel” lists: (a) failure to
25
investigate Notice of Invalid Lien; (b) failure to question indictment; (c) failure to object
In Claim Five, Petitioner argues that the trial court violated his Eighth
Claim Six re-alleges Petitioner’s claims of judicial and prosecutorial
In particular, Petitioner raises his denial of a jury trial, prosecutorial
Finally,
26
1
27
28
Paragraph one on page six, lines 1-12, of the R&R incorrectly lists Petitioner’s
claims and is replaced by the findings of this Order.
2
Petitioner fails to fully articulate this argument. Rather, he puts his argument in
in parentheticals, i.e., (false document).
-2-
1
to misleading evidence; (d) failure to address conspiracy charge; (e) failure to call any
2
witnesses on Petitioner’s behalf; (f) failure to object to excessive sentencing; and (g)
3
failure of appellate counsel to appeal appealable issues.
DISCUSSION
4
5
The R&R addressed Petitioner’s six claims as well as his “5.2 Ineffective
6
Assistance of Counsel” allegations, and no objections to the R&R’s legal findings were
7
filed. Reviewing for clear error, this Court finds none. Accordingly,
8
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
9
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED as
10
the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court, with the modifications discussed
11
in this Order;
12
13
14
15
2. Petitioner’s Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a
Person in State Custody (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and
3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in this matter, and close its file.
Dated this 4th day of November, 2013.
16
17
18
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?