Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00491/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00491-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Earl Ball,

Petitioner,

v.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-07-491-TUC-DCB

ORDER

This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and the local rules of practice of this

Court for a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. Before the Court is the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, which recommends that the

Petition be denied and dismissed. The Petitioner filed Objections to the

Report and Recommendation on November 9, 2009. 

PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS

Petitioner’s objections reiterate the claims contained in the

habeas petition: (1) prosecutorial misconduct; (2) mistake of law; (3)

state bar from prosecution; and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel.

Basically, Petitioner alleges that the recommendation to dismiss the

action is based on the Magistrate Judge’s bias and lack of understanding

of the law.

Case 4:07-cv-00491-DCB Document 26 Filed 11/23/09 Page 1 of 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 2

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When objection is made to the findings and recommendation of a

magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review.

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

DISCUSSION 

Petitioner was convicted in Cochise County Superior Court, case

numbers CR 98000296 and CR 98000345, of sexual exploitation of a minor

and was sentenced to two 10- year terms of imprisonment. Petitioner names

Dora B. Schriro as Respondent to the Petition and the Arizona Attorney

General as an Additional Respondent. Petitioner raises four grounds for

relief: (1) the trial prosecutor failed to present exculpatory evidence

to the grand jury; (2) Petitioner’s sentence violates Blakely; (3) the

trial court erred in not finding the allegations against Petitioner

barred by the statute of limitations; and (4) Petitioner’s trial and

appellate counsel were ineffective. Petitioner alleges that he has

presented these claims to the Arizona Court of Appeals.

Respondents, in a thorough and detailed review of Petitioner’s

conviction, appeal and post-conviction litigation, argued that the action

should be dismissed based on: procedural default and claims not

cognizable for federal habeas relief. (Doc. No. 12.)

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is thorough and

well-reasoned. Petitioner’s Objections do not highlight any new or

pertinent law or facts that were left unconsidered or unresolved by the

R&R. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, after conducting a de novo review of the record,

Case 4:07-cv-00491-DCB Document 26 Filed 11/23/09 Page 2 of 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 3

IT IS ORDERED that the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation

(Doc. No. 23) in its entirety. The Objections raised by the Petitioner

are OVERRULED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(Doc. No. 1) is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

Final Judgment to enter separately. 

DATED this 19th day of November, 2009.

Case 4:07-cv-00491-DCB Document 26 Filed 11/23/09 Page 3 of 3