Jackson v. Hatch

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING 22 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by District Judge Martha Vazquez; re 1 Petition for 2254 Relief filed by Charles B Jackson. See order for specifics. (gr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
CHARLES B. JACKSON III,
Petitioner,
v.

1:20-cv-00242-MV-LF

TIMOTHY HATCH, Warden, and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Respondents.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
The Magistrate Judge filed her Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition on
September 13, 2021. Doc. 22. The proposed findings notified the parties of their ability to file
objections within fourteen (14) days and that failure to do so waived appellate review. To date,
the parties have not filed any objections and there is nothing in the record indicating that the
proposed findings were not delivered.
Wherefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1.

The Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (Doc.
22) is ADOPTED;

2.

The Court finds that Mr. Jackson has filed a mixed petition. Mr. Jackson has
exhausted only the following three sub-claims contained in his habeas petition
(Doc. 1):
• (1)(a) ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel failing to “look
into missing text messages”;
• (2)(a) narcotics agents involved in his case “withheld exculpatory evidence”
consisting of “text messages between [him] and Sheriff of Dona Ana County
Chris Lopez that would have proved [he] aborted the transactions he was
charged with on July 27, 2018”;
• (4)(b) trial court error and lack of due process based on the trial court failing
to heed his allegations of missing text messages.

3. If Mr. Jackson wishes to proceed with his habeas petition solely on his three
exhausted sub-claims, he must file a document so stating within thirty (30) days
of this order. If Mr. Jackson fails to file a document voluntarily dismissing his
unexhausted claims within thirty (30) days, the Court will dismiss his entire
petition without prejudice.

______________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2