Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_22-cv-00533/USCOURTS-azd-2_22-cv-00533-1/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Wade Eugene Bradford,

Petitioner,

v. 

David Shinn, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-22-00533-PHX-SRB

ORDER 

Petitioner, Wade Eugene Bradford filed a timely Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody and later filed an Amended 

Petition raising ten grounds for relief. Respondents file a Limited Answer asserting that 

Grounds One and Two were not cognizable habeas claims and that Grounds Three through 

Ten were procedurally defaulted with the exception of one ineffective assistance of counsel 

claim raised within the facts section of Ground Five. Petitioner filed a Reply to the Limited 

Answer.

The Magistrate Judge issued her Report and Recommendation on May 26, 2023 

finding that Grounds One and Two were not cognizable claims, that Grounds Three 

through Ten (with the exception of one ineffective assistance claim) were procedurally 

defaulted without excuse, and that the ineffective assistance claim was without merits. The 

Magistrate Judge recommended that Grounds One and Two be dismissed with prejudice 

for failing to raise cognizable habeas claims, that Grounds Three through Ten be dismissed 

for failure to exhaust and that the claim within Ground Five that counsel was ineffective 

Case 2:22-cv-00533-SRB Document 74 Filed 11/21/23 Page 1 of 5
- 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

for failing to investigate Petitioner’s mental health history be denied on the merits. The 

Magistrate Judge also recommended that a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis on appeal be denied.

After receiving an extension of time to file his Objections to the Report and 

Recommendation until July 20, 2023, Petitioner filed a 61-page Objection which was later 

stricken by the Court. Petitioner then was granted another extension of time to file 

Objections. Petitioner filed his Objections on August 24, 2023. Respondents have filed 

their Response to the Objections and Petitioner has filed an unauthorized Reply.1

Petitioner first argues in his Objections that his pro se Petition was not liberally 

construed by the Magistrate Judge. This is demonstrably untrue as shown by the Magistrate 

Judge’s liberal reading of Petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and 

consideration of that claim on the merits despite its questionable lack of exhaustion.

In his remaining Objections, Petitioner object to virtually everything in the Report 

and Recommendation listing 20 objections but failing to explain how the Magistrate Judge

erred in her analysis and recommendations. He takes issues with the accurate recitation of 

the state court record and offers instead his own version of the record based on his affidavit. 

As Respondents argue, the Magistrate Judge was required to make a Report and 

Recommendation on the Amended Habeas Petition. She was not required to consider 

Petitioner’s 89-page affidavit detailing his narrative of the state court proceedings, his 

alleged conditions of confinement, his claimed interaction with his attorneys and his mental 

health history. The Magistrate Judge’s task was to analyze the state court record for 

constitutional deprivations if such claims were exhausted in state court before Petitioner 

brought them to federal court seeking habeas relief. 

The Court rejects Petitioner’s Objections because they fail to demonstrate any error 

in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, are a re-argument of the Petition, 

and suggest obligations on the federal court to rule on claims not cognizable on habeas 

review and to decide unexhausted claims on the merits. The Court agrees with the 

1 Petitioner has filed other Motions with the Court which will be addressed later in this 

Order.

Case 2:22-cv-00533-SRB Document 74 Filed 11/21/23 Page 2 of 5
- 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

Magistrate Judge that Petitioner has made no showing of actual innocence or of a “cause 

and prejudice” that would excuse his procedural default. 

Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation for denial of his claim 

in Ground Five that his trial attorney was ineffective in failing to investigate his mental 

health history. But as the Magistrate Judge related, Petitioner’s counsel filed a Rule 11 

Motion for an evaluation of Defendant’s competency to stand trial, the Motion was granted, 

Petitioner was evaluated by two doctors who prepared written reports presented to the trial 

judge, and the trial judge found Petitioner competent. The Court agrees with the Magistrate 

Judge that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that any further investigation by his trial 

counsel would have resulted in a finding that he was not competent to stand trial. 

The Court agrees with the Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge

and Petitioner’s objections will be overruled.

The Court will also deny the following motions for the following reasons:

Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to file Motion to Amend Petition (Doc. 53) is denied. 

Petitioner offered this motion in lieu of filing objections to the Report and 

Recommendation. He failed to explain how he wished to amend his already amended 

Petition and how any amendment would cure the failures to exhaust and the non-cognizable 

claims.

Petitioner’s Motion for Leave Court Consider Affidavit-Brain Damage (Doc. 58)

and Motion for Leave Court Consider Supporting Documents to Petitioner’s Objections to 

Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 62) are denied. The 12-page affidavit of 

Petitioner and the 33-pages of additional argument also repeat the same arguments 

previously raised before the Magistrate Judge and are nothing more than additional 

meritless objections to the Report and Recommendation.

Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 67) and Motion to Modify Custody 

to Release on Bail (Doc. 70) are denied. The Court has found no merit to Petitioner’s 

Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and agrees with its 

recommendations for dismissal and denial of the Petition. Because the Court has concluded 

Case 2:22-cv-00533-SRB Document 74 Filed 11/21/23 Page 3 of 5
- 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

that Petitioner is not being held in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United 

States, no release could be justified even if this Court had the authority to grant it. 

Moreover, because the Petition is meritless and the Court will be denying a Certificate of 

Appealability, there is no basis for the Court to consider appointment of counsel.

IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner’s Objections to Magistrate’s Report and 

Recommendation. (Doc. 57)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court. (Doc. 43)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Grounds One and Two of the Amended 

Petition for failure to allege cognizable habeas claims.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Grounds Three and Four and Six through 

Ten of the Amended Petition for failure to exhaust. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Ground Five alleging ineffective assistance 

of trial counsel for alleged failure to investigate Petitioner’s mental health history.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to file Motion 

to Amend Petition. (Doc. 53)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Motion for Leave Court 

Consider Affidavit-Brain Damage and Motion for Leave Court Consider Supporting 

Documents to Petitioner’s Objections to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation. (Docs 

58 and 62)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel and 

Motion to Modify Custody to Release on Bail. (Docs. 67 and 70)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because the denial of the motion is justified by a plain 

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

because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

. . .

. . . 

Case 2:22-cv-00533-SRB Document 74 Filed 11/21/23 Page 4 of 5
- 5 -

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 directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.

Dated this 21st day of November, 2023.

Case 2:22-cv-00533-SRB Document 74 Filed 11/21/23 Page 5 of 5