Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01769/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01769-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Matthew Caine Gaddis,

 Petitioner,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-01769-PHX-PGR (JFM)

 

 ORDER

 

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation on Motion to Stay

(Doc. 16) and Report and Recommendation on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(Doc. 20), both issued by Magistrate Judge James Metcalf, notwithstanding that no

party has objected to either Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the

Magistrate Judge correctly concluded, first, that the petitioner has not established

that he is entitled to a stay of this action in order to exhaust state remedies, second,

that the petitioner’s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254, must be denied because the petitioner’s federal claims are all

procedurally defaulted given that he failed to fairly present them to the state courts

and cannot now do so, he has failed to proffer any good cause to excuse the

procedural default, and he has not made any claim of actual innocence, and third,

Case 2:11-cv-01769-PGR Document 21 Filed 11/14/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

that the petitioner is not entitled to the issuance of a certificate of appealability

because he has not demonstrated that jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether his amended petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional

right or whether jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the Court is correct

in its procedural ruling. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on

Motion to Stay (Doc. 16) and Report and Recommendation on Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus (Doc. 20) are both accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Motion to Stay Writ of Habeas

Corpus (Doc. 12) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s First Amended Petition Under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc.

6) is denied and that this action is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall be issued.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 13th day of November, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01769-PGR Document 21 Filed 11/14/12 Page 2 of 2