Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01916/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01916-3/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NOT FOR PUBLICATION 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 

Chad Everett Braxton, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Arizona, State of, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-01916-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is Petitioner Chad Everett Braxton’s Second Amended Petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 22), filed October 10, 2014, to which Respondent filed its 

Response on February 27, 2015 (Doc. 30), and Petitioner filed a Reply on March 27, 

2015 (Doc. 31). Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade issued a Report and Recommendation 

(“R&R”) in the matter on June 4, 2015 (Doc. 33), to which Petitioner filed objections 

styled as a Response to Report and Recommendation on June 15, 2015 (Doc. 34). For 

the reasons set forth in the R&R, this Court will deny the Petition. 

 Judge Bade comprehensively and correctly analyzed the issues involved in the 

Second Amended Petition, and this Court will adopt the recommendations set forth in the 

R&R as well as the reasoning supporting those recommendations. For that reason, it will 

not restate those issues or their resolution here in detail. Judge Bade correctly concluded 

that Petitioner presented none of the four issues he raises in his Second Amended Petition 

on direct appeal in the state court; nor did he raise any of the four issues in any state postconviction relief proceeding. Moreover, Judge Bade concluded it is too late to go back to 

Case 2:13-cv-01916-JJT Document 35 Filed 08/31/15 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 

the state court and raise the issues now in either proceeding, as such an action would now 

be procedurally barred as untimely. All four claims are thus unexhausted yet 

procedurally defaulted. Once claims reach such a posture, a federal court may review the 

merits of those claims only if Petitioner can show both cause and prejudice, and, as set 

forth in detail in the R&R, Petitioner fails to make either showing under the relevant test. 

 In his Response to the R&R, Petitioner raised no new argument; he simply 

repeated the arguments in his Second Amended Petition and his Reply. Thus, Judge 

Bade’s R&R has already adequately and thoroughly addressed each of Petitioners 

arguments in his Response, and this Court will not review them in detail here again. In 

summary, Judge Bade correctly concluded that a mistake by Petitioner in sending his 

supplemental appellate brief to the wrong address did not constitute “cause” within the 

meaning of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 298 (1989). Petitioner’s own actions cannot 

constitute an “objective factor external to the defense” that impeded his efforts to comply 

with Arizona’s procedural rules. See id. And as Judge Bade also noted, nor can the 

Arizona Attorney General’s failure to step in and help Petitioner by rerouting his brief to 

the correct recipient constitute cause. There simply is no “cause” within the meaning of 

Teague, and the analysis could stop there, although Judge Bade correctly went on to 

justify her recommendation that this Court also find no showing of prejudice either. 

 IT IS ORDERED adopting Magistrate Judge Bade’s R&R in its entirety and 

incorporating same into this Order (Doc. 33). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Second Amended Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 22) and dismissing this matter with 

prejudice. 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 2:13-cv-01916-JJT Document 35 Filed 08/31/15 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 denying a Certificate of Appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal in this matter because the dismissal of the instant 

Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the 

procedural ruling debatable. 

 Dated this 31st day of August, 2015. 

 

 Honorable John J. Tuchi 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:13-cv-01916-JJT Document 35 Filed 08/31/15 Page 3 of 3