Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02152/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02152-1/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 

NOT FOR PUBBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Alvin J. Robinson, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

State of Arizona, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-02152-PHX-SRB

ORDER 

 Petitioner Alvin J. Robinson filed his Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody on November 17, 2014. He 

asserted two grounds for relief but only one survived screening. Petitioner alleges that he 

is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States” 

because the trial court did not give him credit for time served on supervised probation or 

in the county jail when it sentenced him to prison. In their answer Respondents assert 

that federal habeas corpus review is procedurally barred and, alternatively, that 

Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable on federal habeas corpus review. Petitioner replied 

arguing that he properly exhausted his remedies in state court and that he had presented a 

federal claim to the state court. 

 The Magistrate Judge issued her Report and Recommendation on June 8, 2015, 

recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied because Petitioner 

had not presented a claim cognizable on federal habeas corpus review and, alternatively, 

Case 2:14-cv-02152-SRB Document 19 Filed 07/22/15 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 

because federal habeas corpus review is procedurally barred and Petitioner failed to 

establish a basis to overcome that bar. Petitioner filed timely objections on June 26, 

2015. 

 In his objections Petitioner does not address either of the grounds set out in the 

Report and Recommendation as the basis for denial of his petition. He argues that 

because he was sentenced over 12 years ago he is automatically time barred from filing a 

Petition for Post-Conviction Relief in state court and has no choice but to file in this 

court. He argues that the state and/or Respondents are trying to use this technicality to 

hinder him from receiving all the credit for time served that he should have received. 

Petitioner then explains why he believes he is entitled to additional time served credit. 

 The requirements for exhaustion and raising a federal claim on habeas review are 

not mere technicalities. As the Magistrate Judge noted in her Report and 

Recommendation, Petitioner has not sufficiently alleged a federal claim and, therefore, 

his claim as expressed in his Amended Petition is not cognizable on federal habeas 

corpus review. Even if Petitioner’s statement that he was “in custody in violation of the 

constitution or laws or treaties of the United States” could adequately allege a violation of 

federal law, he is still procedurally barred because he did not present this federal claim to 

the Arizona Court of Appeals. The Magistrate Judge explained that even if one could 

conclude that Petitioner’s general reference to the language of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and his 

assertion that his custody is illegal and excessive sufficiently pled a federal claim, he is 

still procedurally barred because he did not present a federal claim to the state courts. 

The claim presented to the state court in Petitioner’s February 10, 2014 letter did not cite 

any legal authority and only expressed his position that the time spent in the county jail as 

a condition of probation and the time spent on supervised probation should have been 

credited against his sentences of imprisonment. When he sought review of the trial 

court’s denial of his request for additional credit in the Arizona Court of Appeals he 

again did not present a federal claim. He only argued generally again that he should have 

been given credit for time spent in the county jail and on supervised probation. 

Case 2:14-cv-02152-SRB Document 19 Filed 07/22/15 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 

Petitioner’s objections fail to address either of these procedural bars to the consideration 

of his habeas petition. He also never argues that he can establish any basis to overcome 

the procedural bar. 

 IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner’s Objection to the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 18) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court. (Doc. 17) 

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

Corpus is denied. (Doc. 5) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a 

plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the procedural ruling 

debatable. 

 Dated this 22nd day of July, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-02152-SRB Document 19 Filed 07/22/15 Page 3 of 3