Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01654/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01654-2/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

Don L. Meeker, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Terry L. Stewart, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1654-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Glenda E. Edmonds’ Report and

Recommendation (R&R), (Doc. 13), regarding Petitioner Don L. Meeker’s Petition for

Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 1). Magistrate Judge Edmonds recommended that the Court deny the

petition. (Doc. 13). Meeker filed a response objecting to the R&R on January 11, 2007.

(Doc. 18). For the reasons stated below, the Court will adopt the R&R.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The R&R sets forth the factual background in this case and neither party objected to

that background. Thus, the Court adopts the background portion of the R&R as an accurate

recital of the history of this case. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Because objections

Case 2:05-cv-01654-ROS Document 21 Filed 10/29/07 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 -

were made, the Court reviews the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)

(en banc).

ANALYSIS

In his habeas petition, Meeker sought review of a calculation made by the state of his

new sentence under the Arizona Disproprortionality Review Act, 1994 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch.

365 § 1, which was upheld by the state court. Magistrate Judge Edmonds’ found that Meeker

failed to state a federal claim because “it is not the province of a federal habeas court to

reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions.” (Doc. 13 (quoting Estelle v.

McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991)). The Court agrees.

In his objection to the R&R, Meeker concedes that Counts 9 and 10 should not run

concurrently, but he maintains that it was a violation of his due process rights to not convert

his flat time sentences to soft time sentences. He argues that the Board of Executive

Clemency so converted his sentence, but that Diana Harrison, who is a Time Computation

Program Specialist for the Central Office, Offender Services/Time Computation Unit at the

Arizona Department of Corrections, vindictively and without authority to do so calculated

his sentence as flat time. Meeker has provided no evidence, nor is there any evidence in the

record, that the Board of Executive Clemency converted his time. Indeed, the the Board of

Executive Clemency’s recommendation makes no mention of flat or soft time. (Doc. 13, Ex.

6). And, regardless, the state court upheld the flat-time determination as the correct

interpretation of the applicable state law. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Edmonds’ Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 13) to deny Petitioner’s Writ of Petition is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

Case 2:05-cv-01654-ROS Document 21 Filed 10/29/07 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 -

DATED this 29th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-01654-ROS Document 21 Filed 10/29/07 Page 3 of 3