Douglas v. Hamilton

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING 20 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; mailed to Yancey R L Douglas #207543 TAFT-JDCC P O Box 316 Taft, OK 74463-0316. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 9/29/17. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
YANCEY R. L. DOUGLAS,
Petitioner,
vs.
JIM FARRIS, Warden
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV-16-1454-C

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner filed the present action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the
constitutionality of his state court convictions. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B), the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne
Mitchell, who entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on July 27, 2017,
recommending the Petition be denied. Petitioner has timely objected.
The substantive facts and law are accurately set out in Judge Mitchell’s R&R and
there is no purpose to be served in repeating them yet again. However, the Court will
address two points Petitioner raised in his Objection. First, Petitioner complains of the
denial of his Motion to amend and requests that he be given additional time to retain
counsel to assist him in this matter. As noted in the Court’s Order denying the request to
amend, Petitioner has failed to offer any substantive argument outlining what he hopes to
accomplish through amendment. He fails to offer any evidence or argument permitting
the Court to conduct the analysis required to determine if his amendment would constitute
a second or successive Petition. Likewise, he fails to offer any evidence or argument

explaining when he will retain counsel or what additional assistance counsel will provide.
Thus, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any valid grounds for amending or delaying
disposition of his Petition.

The second matter warranting discussion is Petitioner’s

arguments related to the Computer Assisted Dispatch Report (“CAD”) and the news
reports. Petitioner adds some explanation to his arguments on these issues. However,
even with this amplification, Petitioner has still failed to demonstrate that the Oklahoma
Court of Criminal Appeals’ disposition of his claims was contrary to or an unreasonable
application of clearly established law.
In sum, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate and cannot demonstrate that the
matters he challenges in this habeas action were decided in a manner that was contrary to
or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court law. Accordingly, habeas relief is not
warranted.
As set forth more fully herein, the Court adopts, in full, the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 20), and the petition for writ of habeas
corpus is denied. A separate judgment will issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of September, 2017.

2