Valencia #124129 v. Shinn et al
Filing
30
ORDERED GRANTING Petitioner's Motion to Reply to Respondents' Response to the Petitioner's Objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 29 .) ADOPTING Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman's Report and Recomme ndation. (Doc. 24 .) DENYING Respondents' Motion to Strike "Petitioner's Addendum to his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus." (Doc. 20 .) Petitioner Gregory Nidez Valencia, Jr.'s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Non-Death Penalty) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (Doc. 4.) The Clerk of Court shall docket accordingly and close the case file in this matter. Signed by Senior Judge Raner C Collins on 6/14/22. (MYE)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Gregory Nidez Valencia, Jr.,
Petitioner,
10
11
v.
12
David Shinn, et al.,
13
No. CV-21-00335-TUC-RCC
ORDER
Respondents.
14
15
On March 30, 2022, Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman issued a Report and
16
Recommendation (“R&R”) in which she recommended the Court dismiss Petitioner
17
Gregory Valencia, Jr.’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by
18
a Person in State Custody (Non-Death Penalty) (Doc. 4) and deny Respondents' Motion
19
to Strike the Addendum (Doc. 20). (Doc. 24.) Petitioner filed an objection to the R&R
20
(Doc. 24), and Respondents a response (Doc. 28). Petitioner then filed a motion to reply
21
to the response. (Doc. 29.) Upon review, the Court will grant the motion to reply, adopt
22
the R&R, deny the Motion to Strike, and dismiss Petitioner's § 2254 Habeas Petition.
23
I.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
24
The standard the district court uses when reviewing a magistrate judge’s R&R is
25
dependent upon whether a party objects: where there is no objection to a magistrate’s
26
factual or legal determinations, the district court need not review the decision "under a de
27
novo or any other standard." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). However, when a
28
party objects, the district court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate
1
judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept,
2
reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the
3
matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28
4
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Moreover, “while the statute does not require the judge to review an
5
issue de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review by the district
6
judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.”
7
Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.
8
II.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S R&R
9
Petitioner asserts two grounds for relief: (1) that the Arizona statute regarding
10
parole eligibility for juvenile offenders sentenced to life imprisonment is an
11
unconstitutional ex post facto law, and (2) that his sentence is unlawful because parole
12
eligibility for juveniles should consider whether a juvenile's offense was a result of
13
"transient immaturity." (Doc. 4 at 6, 9.)
14
The Magistrate Judge first concluded that the statute applicable to Petitioner's re-
15
sentencing—A.R.S. § 13-716—was not an ex post facto law because it did not inflict a
16
sentence greater than what could have been provided at the time of Petitioner's original
17
sentencing. (Doc. 24 at 4–5 (quoting Gilman v. Brown, 814 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir.
18
2016) (“A change in law violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Federal Constitution
19
when it inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime, when
20
committed.”).) The statute provides that a juvenile given a life sentence with the
21
possibility of release after a minimum number of years is eligible for parole after that
22
minimum sentence is served. A.R.S. § 13-716. However, the Magistrate reasoned that
23
because parole had been eliminated before Petitioner's original sentencing, he was faced
24
with a possible death or natural life sentence, not parole. (Id. at 5.) Petitioner was
25
sentenced to natural life. (Id.) Then, when the Supreme Court determined that natural life
26
for juvenile offenders may be unconstitutional in certain circumstances, Petitioner was re-
27
sentenced pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-716 with the possibility of parole. (Id. at 2.) And so, at
28
resentencing, Petitioner faced less time than that imposed at his original sentencing. (Id.)
-2-
1
This was true regardless of whether Petitioner's original sentence was later found to be
2
unconstitutional, the Magistrate Judge stated. (Id. at 6 (citing Dobbert v. Florida, 432
3
U.S. 282, 297 (1977).) The Magistrate determined that habeas relief was inappropriate
4
because Petitioner had not demonstrated that the state court's decision was "contrary to or
5
an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent." (Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. §
6
2254(d).)
7
Next, the Magistrate Judge noted Petitioner believed his sentence should be
8
vacated because the parole statute provided no guidance about how to determine parole
9
eligibility for juveniles. (Id. at 6.) The Magistrate indicated Petitioner believed two
10
Supreme Court cases, Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 469 (2012) and Montgomery v.
11
Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190, 208, as revised (Jan. 27, 2016), show that an evaluation of a
12
juvenile offender's eligibility for parole must hinge on whether the juvenile's crime was
13
the result of "transient immaturity." (Id. at 6–7.)
14
The Magistrate Judge indicated that the transient immaturity analysis applied to a
15
juvenile offender's sentence, not his or her parole eligibility. (Id. at 7.) The Magistrate
16
stated that "[o]nce the sentence of life with the possibility of parole is imposed, the
17
requirements of Miller and Montgomery are satisfied." (Id. at 7.) Here, Petitioner
18
received an evidentiary hearing, demonstrated that his crime was a result of transient
19
immaturity, and was re-sentenced to life with the possibility of parole after twenty-five
20
years. (Id.) Thus, the Magistrate Judge determined that Miller and Montgomery were
21
satisfied, and the state court's decision was not unreasonable. (Id. at 7–8.)
22
Finally, the Magistrate Judge dismissed Petitioner's claim that he had no
23
meaningful opportunity for parole, stating that this claim was not presented to the
24
Arizona Court of Appeals and was therefore either not part of his claim for relief, or not
25
exhausted. (Id. at 8.)
26
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's analysis, and finds the R&R well-
27
reasoned. Regardless, Petitioner has not objected to these conclusions in the R&R and
28
therefore the Court need not review "under a de novo or any other standard." Thomas v.
-3-
1
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
2
III.
PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS
3
Petitioner makes three objections to the Magistrate Judge's R&R. First, he
4
disagrees with the Magistrate's statement of facts. (Doc. 27 at 1–2.) Under 28 U.S.C. §
5
2241(e)(1), factual determinations are "presumed to be correct" unless there is clear and
6
convincing evidence to the contrary. See Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 547 (1981).
7
Petitioner has not met this burden. Furthermore, the claims in the instant § 2254 habeas
8
petition do not relate to the facts in the underlying conviction, but to his new sentence,
9
and any challenges regarding the underlying factual allegations leading to his conviction
10
would need to be raised in a successive § 2254 petition.
11
Second, Petitioner argues his sentence is unconstitutional because he received a
12
longer sentence than his co-defendant. (Doc. 27 at 4.) There is no right to the same
13
sentence as a co-defendant, as sentences rely upon various factors present with each case
14
and each defendant. See United States v. Reverol-Rivera, 778 F.3d 363, 366 (1st Cir.
15
2015) (“[D]ifferences in culpability can justify disparate sentences among co-
16
defendants.”). Petitioner was not similarly situated to his co-defendant and cannot show
17
that the length of his sentence was an ex post facto law simply because he incurred a
18
longer sentence.
19
Third, Petitioner claims he is likely to serve a natural life sentence, despite being
20
eligible for parole, because "there is no guarantee of release, especially now that the
21
parole board is illegally made up." (Id. at 4.) A petitioner’s objections to an R&R must
22
specifically indicate the findings and recommendations for which he disagrees. Fed. R.
23
Civ. P. 72(b). Petitioner's allegation provides no explanation how this statement
24
undermines the Magistrate Judge's factual and legal conclusions. Moreover, these
25
arguments were not before the state courts and are not exhausted.
26
IV.
MOTION TO STRIKE
27
Finally, the Court has considered Respondents' Motion to Strike (Doc. 20), asking
28
the Court to strike Petitioner's addendum because he did not seek the Court's leave under
-4-
1
2
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15. The Court, in its discretion, will deny the motion.
V.
MOTION TO REPLY
3
Petitioner has requested permission to file a reply. (Doc. 29.) The Court will allow
4
the reply, however, because the arguments parallel those in his § 2254 habeas and
5
objections, the reply does not change the Court's analysis.
6
VI.
CONCLUSION
7
The Court finds Petitioner's arguments are unfounded, the state appellate court's
8
conclusions were not contrary to federal law, and Petitioner is not entitled to relief. For
9
the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED:
10
1) GRANTING Petitioner's Motion to Reply to Respondents' Response to the
11
Petitioner's Objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation.
12
(Doc. 29.)
13
14
15
16
2) ADOPTING Magistrate
Judge Leslie
A. Bowman's
Report and
Recommendation. (Doc. 24.)
3) DENYING Respondents' Motion to Strike "Petitioner's Addendum to his
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 20.)
17
4) Petitioner Gregory Nidez Valencia, Jr.'s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
18
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Non-Death
19
Penalty) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (Doc. 4.)
20
21
22
5) The Clerk of Court shall docket accordingly and close the case file in this
matter.
Dated this 14th day of June, 2022.
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
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?