Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02562/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02562-1/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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

George Soto,

Petitioner,

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-14-02562-PHX-JJT

ORDER

At issue is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 15) prepared in this 

matter by United States Magistrate Judge Eileen Willett, recommending the Court deny 

and dismiss the Petition for habeas review on the merits. Petitioner timely filed an

Objection (Doc. 20) and Respondent has filed no response.

The Court will adopt in whole Judge Willett’s R&R, as it correctly and reasonably 

applies the law under AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 and 2254 and Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), to Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

Neither the state court’s ruling that Petitioner’s trial counsel did not perform in a 

constitutionally deficient matter, nor its finding that Petitioner failed to establish 

prejudice, is contrary to or an unreasonable application of Strickland.

Petitioner’s Objection to the R&R fails to persuade otherwise. He simply restates

in conclusory fashion that the state court violated the above standard, and to the extent 

that the Objection can be construed to argue facts previously alleged, Judge Willett’s 

R&R addresses head-on those facts and their inadequacy to show inadequacy under the 

Strickland standard.

Case 2:14-cv-02562-JJT Document 21 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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

Petitioner also attempts to raise additional grounds for habeas relief in the 

Objection, arguing alternatively that his confinement places him at high risk of abuse by 

other prisoners, which constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth 

Amendment, and that his incarceration singles him out for different treatment than other 

inmates who do not have Petitioner’s claimed “mental or physical handicaps,” which 

decision Petitioner deems a 14th Amendment violation. But the Petition in this matter 

raised only a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth 

Amendment. Petitioner is not free to add grounds to his Petition at this late date, where 

Respondents had no opportunity to address them. If Petitioner wishes to raise such 

claims, he may only do so under a separate action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 or other

appropriate law.

For the reasons set forth above and in detail in the R&R, 

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) in whole.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying and dismissing the Petition (Doc. 1).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a certificate of appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, upon the Court’s finding that Petitioner has not 

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in his claim for relief..

Dated this 2nd day of May, 2016.

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-02562-JJT Document 21 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 2