Dean v. Patton et al

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING 21 Report and Recommendation, DENYING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, DENYING 17 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing filed by Matthew Zachariah Dean, DENYING 19 Brief in Support of Federal Habeas Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)(2) and Motion for Evidentiary Hearing Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2); Rule 8(a)(b) R. 6(a) 8(c) filed by Matthew Zachariah Dean, DENYING 20 Motion for Leave filed by Matthew Zachariah Dean, DENYING a certificate of appealability. Signed by Honorable Stephen P. Friot on 3/13/2018. (llg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MATTHEW ZACHARIAH DEAN,
Petitioner,
-vsJOE M. ALLBAUGH,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-15-1323-F

ORDER
Petitioner Matthew Zachariah Dean, appearing pro se, has filed a petition
seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his criminal conviction
by the State of Oklahoma.
On December 7, 2017, Magistrate Judge Bernard M. Jones entered a Report
and Recommendation (the Report) addressing each of petitioner’s grounds for relief.
Doc. no. 21. The Report recommends denial of the petition for habeas relief. The
Report also recommends denial of petitioner’s pending motions. Petitioner objects
to the Report. Doc. no. 26.
As required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), the court has reviewed all objected to
matters de novo. Having done so, the court agrees with the conclusions stated in the
detailed Report and finds that no purpose would be served by further analysis here.
Plaintiff’s objections to the Report are DENIED. The Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and

AFFIRMED. In accordance with the Report, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus
is DENIED. For the reasons stated in the Report, petitioner’s pending motions are
also DENIED. See, motions at doc. no. 17 (“Motion for Evidentiary Hearing”); doc.
no. 19 (“Petitioner’s Brief in Support of Federal Habeas Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(1)(2) and Petitioner’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2); Rule 8(a)(b) R. 6(a) 8(c),” repeating arguments for habeas
relief, seeking an evidentiary hearing, and asking for appointment of counsel); and
doc. no. 20 (“Motion to File for Leave,” seeking “permission to file for leave to stay
to amend pleadings for the proper exhaustion in State Court…. [i]n order to develop
Factual Allegations presented for review,” with no additional argument stated in the
motion).
Movant is entitled to a certificate of appealability only upon making a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
This standard is satisfied by demonstrating that the issues movant seeks to raise are
deserving of further proceedings, debatable among jurists of reasons, or subject to
different resolution on appeal. See, Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)
(“[W]e give the language found in §2253(c) the meaning ascribed it in [Barefoot v.
Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)], with due note for the substitution of the word
‘constitutional.’”). “Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on
the merits,...[t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Id.
When a prisoner’s habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds without
reaching the merits of the prisoner’s claims, “a COA should issue when the prisoner
shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition

2

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural
ruling.” Id. Petitioner has not made the requisite showing and a certificate of
appealability is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of March, 2018.

15-1323p003.docx

3