Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00001/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00001-1/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

Sanjay Babulal Gohel, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-0001-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it petitioner's amended petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. 12), petitioner's memorandum in support of petition (doc.

5), respondents' answer (doc. 15), petitioner's reply and motion to stay and abey (doc. 20),

respondents' supplemental answer (doc. 26), and petitioner's supplemental reply (doc. 29).

We also have the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge

recommending that petitioner's motion to stay and abey be denied (doc. 24). The parties did

not file objections.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), we must "make a de novo determination of those

portions of the [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations

to which objection is made." De novo review is not required absent an objection or request

for review by the defendant. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003).

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a single petition for habeas corpus relief containing

Case 2:10-cv-00001-FJM Document 30 Filed 11/04/11 Page 1 of 4
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

- 2 -

some claims that have been exhausted in state court and some that have not. Ground VII,

included for the first time in petitioner's amended petition, contains several claims. These

claims are based on the fact that an incomplete record was transmitted to the appellate court.

The missing documents included the transcript of petitioner's aggravation/mitigation hearing,

a minute entry, exhibit worksheet, and special verdict from that hearing, thirteen letters

written to the sentencing judge on petitioner's behalf, and the cover sheet of a transcript from

the sentencing of petitioner's co-defendant. Petitioner asserts the incomplete record resulted

in a denial of his rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment

to the United States Constitution. He claims his counsel's failure to notice the error was also

ineffective assistance. In addition, petitioner claims the omitted records would have helped

some of his other arguments. Petitioner requests a stay so he can exhaust these claims in

state court.

Petitioner admits his claims based on the incomplete record are not exhausted. He

argues, though, that state remedies are available because his claims are based on newly

discovered evidence or, alternatively, could be presented in a motion to recall an appellate

mandate. Respondents contend that petitioner has procedurally defaulted and the magistrate

judge agreed. 

A mixed petition should be stayed, not dismissed, "if the petitioner had good cause

for his failure to exhaust, his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and there is no

indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics." Rhines v.

Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005). The magistrate judge found that

Rhines does not apply since petitioner failed to show his claims are not procedurally

defaulted. Even if he could show good cause for his failure to exhaust, though, his claims

are plainly meritless and so his petition should not be stayed.

Rule 32.1(e), Ariz. R. Crim. P., permits a petition for post-conviction relief based

upon "[n]ewly discovered material facts [that] probably would have changed the verdict or

sentence." To be considered newly discovered, the evidence must have existed at the time

of the trial but discovered after the trial. The omission of records here did not occur until

Case 2:10-cv-00001-FJM Document 30 Filed 11/04/11 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

after the trial and would not have changed the verdict or sentence. Therefore, the omitted

records are not newly discovered evidence under Rule 32.1(e) and the claims are barred by

the preclusion and timeliness bars of Rules 32.2 and 32.4, Ariz. R. Crim. P. "[I]f the

petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies and the court to which the petitioner would be

required to present his claims in order to meet the exhaustion requirement would now find

the claims procedurally barred. . . . there is a procedural default for purposes of federal

habeas." Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 735 n.1, 111 S. Ct. 2546, 2557 n.1 (1991).

Even if petitioner's claims were not procedurally defaulted, he would not be entitled

to a stay because his claims are meritless. He failed to show any "specific prejudice"

resulting from the omission of records on appeal. United States v. Wilson, 16 F.3d 1027,

1031 (9th Cir. 1994) (when court reporter failed to record all proceedings verbatim,

defendant had to demonstrate specific prejudice resulted to obtain reversal); Bransford v.

Brown, 806 F.2d 83, 86 (6th Cir. 1986) (petitioner had to show prejudice resulting from

missing transcripts to demonstrate denial of a fair appeal). Petitioner did not show that

prejudice resulted because he did not show that a viable claim was lost due to the missing

transcript. Once he received the omitted documents, he still failed to raise any viable claims.

He suggests that the records help his other arguments, but makes no reference to the records

to support those claims. He says the judge's discretion in sentencing could now be fully

evaluated, but he does not point to any portions of the records which support an assertion of

an abuse of discretion. 

Petitioner additionally claims that the failure to notice the omissions was ineffective

assistance of counsel in violation of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052

(1984). Under Strickland, though, a petitioner must establish prejudice by showing "that

there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the

proceeding would have been different." Id. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068. Petitioner has not

shown how the result of his appeal would have been different if his counsel had noticed the

missing records. 

Petitioner's arguments in Ground VII do not have merit. Consequently, even if state

Case 2:10-cv-00001-FJM Document 30 Filed 11/04/11 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

remedies were available to fairly present and properly exhaust his claims, he is not entitled

to a stay. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge (doc. 24) and DENYING the motion to stay and abey (doc. 20).

DATED this 3rd day of November, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00001-FJM Document 30 Filed 11/04/11 Page 4 of 4