Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01347/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01347-1/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jose Jaime Silva-Acosta, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-01347-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Doc. 

1), United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns’ Report and Recommendation 

(“R&R”), (Doc. 13), and Petitioner’s objections to the R&R, (Doc. 14). 

 The Court has considered Petitioner’s objections and reviewed the R&R de novo. 

The R&R recommends that the Court deny the petition and that it be dismissed with 

prejudice as to Grounds Three, Four, Five and Six because they are procedurally barred. 

Nor did Petitioner establish grounds to excuse the procedural default by a showing of 

cause and prejudice or argue a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Additionally, 

inadequate assistance of counsel at initial-review collateral proceedings—which may 

establish cause for procedural default of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel—

does not apply to Grounds Three, Four and Six, which do not allege ineffective assistance 

of counsel, and the ineffective assistance of counsel claim alleged in Ground Five fails 

both prongs of the test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 

Regarding Grounds One and Two of the petition, both of which allege ineffective 

Case 2:14-cv-01347-DLR Document 15 Filed 06/05/15 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 

assistance of counsel, the R&R recommends dismissal because Petitioner failed to 

demonstrate deficient performance or resulting prejudice, and the state courts’ rejection 

of these claims was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Strickland. 

 The Court has considered Petitioner’s objections as if they had been filed before 

the R&R had been prepared. Petitioner’s objections are conclusory and not supported by 

facts. For example, Petitioner argues that “to the best of his knowledge he has adequately 

exhausted all his claims with the state courts and not omitted any procedural steps,” and 

“[t]he trial court committed basic and fundamentally error where it improperly attempted 

to coerce the Petitioner, and thus violates the 14th Amendment for Equal Protection and 

Due Process where fear was used as a potential fulcrum against him.” (Doc. 14 at 3, 5.) 

 Having considered Petitioner’s objections, the Court agrees with the Magistrate 

Judge’s determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the meaning of Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and overrules Petitioner’s objections. See 28 U.S.C. 

§636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the R&R, (Doc. 13), is ACCEPTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment 

DENYING Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§2254, (Doc.1), with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

Case 2:14-cv-01347-DLR Document 15 Filed 06/05/15 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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, having considered the issuance of a 

Certificate of Appealability from the order denying Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus, a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on 

appeal are DENIED because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural 

bar and jurists of reason would not find the ruling debatable. 

 Dated this 4th day of June, 2015. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-01347-DLR Document 15 Filed 06/05/15 Page 3 of 3