Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02933/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02933-1/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

Antonio Martinez, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 04-2933-PHX-MHM (ECV)

ORDER

Petitioner has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging his criminal conviction following a jury trial on two counts of aggravated assault

and five counts of misdemeanor endangerment, in Maricopa County Superior Court, State of

Arizona. (Doc. 1). The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss who has

issued a Report and Recommendation that recommends that the Petition should be denied and

dismissed with prejudice. (Doc.8). Petitioner has not filed an objection to the Report and

Recommendation. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court must review the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations

de novo if objection is made but not otherwise. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)("[a] judge of the court shall

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings

or recommendations to which objection is made"). "Failure to object to a magistrate judge's

Case 2:04-cv-02933-MHM Document 9 Filed 06/19/06 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 -

recommendation waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact." Jones v. Wood, 207

F.3d 557, 562 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). 

DISCUSSION

The Court has considered the pleadings and documents of record in this case.

Petitioner's conviction was affirmed by the Arizona Court of Appeals. See State v. Martinez,

47 P.3d 1145 (Ariz. App. 2002). A Petition for Review to the Arizona Supreme Court was

denied. On July 8, 2002, Petitioner filed a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief. After Petitioner

filed a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief, the public defender was appointed to represent him

in the state post-conviction proceedings. On September 27, 2002, the public defender filed

notice indicating that after reviewing the record he was unable to find any claims for relief to

raise. The public defender requested that the trial court extend the time to file a postconviction petition to allow Petitioner to file a pro se petition. The trial court granted the

requested extension and set November 4, 2002 as the deadline for Petitioner to file his pro se

petition, warning Petitioner that if no petition was filed by the due date, the Notice of PostConviction Relief would be dismissed. Petitioner did not file his pro se Petition for PostConviction Relief until December 24, 2002, a date past the designated due date. On March

4, 2003, the trial court dismissed the post-conviction proceedings because the petition was not

timely.

The Magistrate Judge has recommended that the claims asserted in the Petition are

procedurally defaulted and that Petitioner has not shown cause for the default, actual prejudice

or that a fundamental miscarriage of justice will result if the claims are not considered. The

Magistrate Judge further has recommended that the federal petition was not "properly filed"

within the statute of limitations period since the state petition was not filed within the state's

required time limit, citing Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 1812 (2005). Neither party

has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The Court is in

agreement with the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

Accordingly, 

Case 2:04-cv-02933-MHM Document 9 Filed 06/19/06 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 adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc.

8) in its entirety as the Order of the Court; 

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

and dismissed with prejudice. 

 DATED this 15th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02933-MHM Document 9 Filed 06/19/06 Page 3 of 3