Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08047/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08047-1/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 

Dennis Paul Eddy, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-08047-PCT-NVW (BSB)

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade (Doc. 47) regarding petitioner’s Second Amended 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 22). The 

R&R recommends that Grounds One, Two and Three of the Second Amended Petition be 

dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner seeking permission from the Ninth Circuit to 

bring those claims in a successive petition for writ of habeas corpus. The R&R further 

recommends the claims asserted in Grounds Four, Five, and Six are not successive and 

recommends that Respondents be directed to answer those claims. 

The R&R further recommends that the motion for declaratory judgment (Doc. 39) 

be construed as a motion to supplement the Second Amended Petition be granted and that 

Respondents be ordered to answer the claims in that filing. Finally, the R&R 

recommends that Petitioner’s remaining motions (Docs. 40, 41, 42) be denied. The 

Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the 

R&R. (R&R at 12 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)); Fed. R.Civ P. 6 and 72. Petitioner 

Case 3:14-cv-08047-NVW Document 53 Filed 09/09/15 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 

filed objections on September 3, 2015 (Doc. 52). Respondents have not filed any 

objections. 

 The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and 

Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that 

the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and 

Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The Court agrees with the 

Magistrate Judge’s determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the 

meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., 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 Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 47) is accepted in that the Court dismisses Grounds One, Two, 

and Three without prejudice to Petitioner seeking authorization from the Ninth Circuit to 

bring those claims in a successive § 2254 petition, and that the Court denies Petitioner’s 

request to stay this matter (Doc. 46 at 4) while he seeks such authorization. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court denies Petitioner’s Motion for Relief 

from Judgment or Order. (Doc. 40.) 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court construes Petitioner’s Motion for 

Declaratory Relief (Doc. 39) as a motion to supplement the Second Amended Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus and grants that motion. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall file an answer to Grounds 

Four, Five, and Six and to the motion for declaratory relief (construed as a motion to 

supplement the Second Amended Petition) within thirty days of the Court’s order, and 

that Petitioner may file a reply within thirty days of service of Respondents’ answer. 

Case 3:14-cv-08047-NVW Document 53 Filed 09/09/15 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 the Court denies Petitioner’s motions for 

expedited ruling on his Motion for Declaratory Relief and Motion for Relief from 

Judgment. (Docs. 41, 42.) 

 Dated this 8th day of September, 2015. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-08047-NVW Document 53 Filed 09/09/15 Page 3 of 3