Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04897/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04897-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

DeWayne Brian Wheeler,

Petitioner,

v. 

Attorney General of the State of Arizona, et 

al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-19-04897-PHX-DJH (DMF)

ORDER 

Before the Court is Petitioner’s unopposed Motion for Stay and Abeyance 

(“Motion to Stay”) (Doc. 4) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by 

Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine on December 10, 2019 (Doc. 13). On December 16, 

2019, Petitioner filed a “Motion to Lift or Disregard Stay and Abeyance” (Doc. 14), 

which Judge Fine construed as an objection to the R&R’s recommendation that the stay 

be granted pending issuance of the mandate regarding Petitioner’s post-conviction review 

proceedings (Doc. 15). 

I. Background

In his Motion to Stay, Petitioner asks that his Petition be stayed until he has 

exhausted the basis for the claims advanced in Ground Two of his pro se Petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”) (Doc. 4). Respondents do 

not oppose Petitioner’s requested stay. (Doc. 12). In her R&R, Magistrate Judge Fine 

finds that good cause exists to stay Petitioner’s case, and recommends, among other 

things, that “within thirty days of the [state court] mandate issuing, Respondents and 

Case 2:19-cv-04897-DJH Document 16 Filed 03/11/20 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Petitioner shall file a new report regarding the status of the state court proceedings.” 

(Doc. 13 at 5). 

Six days after she issued her R&R, and before this Court could review the R&R 

recommending the stay, Petitioner sought to lift or disregard the stay. (Doc. 14 at 3-4). 

Magistrate Judge Fine construed Petitioner’s filing as an Objection to the R&R. 

(Doc. 15). 

II. Discussion

The district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the 

report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to.”); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (same). The judge “may 

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by 

the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

Petitioner does not make a traditional objection to a fact or finding in the R&R,

but appears to be alerting the Court to the fact that his PCR claims have now been 

exhausted in the Arizona courts and thus the requested stay is no longer necessary and/or 

can be lifted.1 Magistrate Judge Fine construed Petitioner’s notice as an objection to her 

recommendation that the stay be granted only “pending the issuance of the mandate 

regarding Petitioner’s PCR proceedings.” (Doc. 13 at 5). As she notes in her Order,

though Petitioner’s Objection references the Arizona Appeals Court’s decision on his 

PCR proceedings, he does not reference a mandate, and Respondents have been silent on 

the issuance of the same. (Doc. 15). The Court appreciates Petitioner’s efforts to inform 

the Court as to the status of his PCR proceedings, but understands the prudence of 

requiring evidence of a mandate before lifting a warranted stay. The Court will therefore 

overrule Petitioner’s Objection and adopt the R&R, but with the additional requirement 

that if a mandate has already issued in Petitioner’s PCR proceedings, that Petitioner and 

1 The Court notes that on December 16, 2019, at the time of Petitioner’s filing, there was 

no stay to lift, as this Court had yet to adopt Magistrate Judge Fine’s R&R. 

Case 2:19-cv-04897-DJH Document 16 Filed 03/11/20 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Respondents file a report within 14 days of this Order so informing the Court. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Fine’s R&R (Doc. 13) is ACCEPTED 

AND ADOPTED as the Order of this Court. Petitioner’s Motion for Stay (Doc. 4) is 

GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as recommended in the R&R, Petitioner and 

Respondents must file a report informing the Court of the status of the state court 

proceedings no later than 30 days after the date of service of this Order adopting this 

Report and Recommendation, and every 90 days thereafter. Petitioner and Respondents 

must also file a report informing this Court within 30 days after the mandate is issued in 

Petitioner’s PCR proceedings, or if 30 days have passed since its issuance, within 14 days 

of this Order.

Dated this 10th day of March, 2020.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:19-cv-04897-DJH Document 16 Filed 03/11/20 Page 3 of 3