Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00171/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00171-1/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Raul Santos-Silvas, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-12-00171-TUC-JGZ (LAB)

ORDER 

 On August 6, 2013, Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman issued a Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 22) recommending that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, filed on March 8, 2012 (Doc. 1), be denied. 

The R&R provided that any party could file written objections within fourteen (14) days 

after being served with a copy of the R&R. On August 23, 2013, Petitioner filed 

Objections to the R&R. (Doc. 24.) For the reasons stated herein, the Court adopts the 

R&R. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for clear error the unobjected-to 

portions of the R&R. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); 

see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). 

LEGAL ANALYSIS 

 Petitioner objects to the R&R on four grounds: (1) the R&R’s fact summary 

incorrectly identifies him as the vehicle’s driver and wearer of a “bloody t-shirt,” which 

Case 4:12-cv-00171-JGZ Document 25 Filed 10/25/13 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 

Petitioner denies and asserts he is a victim of mistaken identity caused by improper incourt identification; (2) the R&R fails to address the evidentiary issues raised by the 

“bloody t-shirt,” particularly whether the “bloody t-shirt” should be DNA tested; (3) the 

R&R “ignores” that Petitioner’s need for DNA testing justifies an appointment of legal 

counsel; and (4) the R&R is flawed because it fails to appoint him legal counsel. 

 Petitioner’s first objection misstates the R&R’s “case summary”; the R&R does 

not state he was “wearing a bloody t-shirt.” (Doc. 22, p. 2, ln. 5.) Moreover, the R&R’s 

statement that Petitioner was found to be the driver of the vehicle is a direct finding from 

the Arizona Court of Appeals Memorandum Decision, 2 CA-CR 2008-0165, and this 

Court finds no error in this reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); see also Moses v. 

Payne, 555 F.3d 742, 746 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding factual summary of the Arizona 

Court of Appeals is accorded a presumption of correctness) (internal citation omitted). 

(Doc. 11-2, p. 23.) As such, Petitioner’s factual objection is overruled. 

To the extent Petitioner’s first and second objections raise evidentiary challenges 

regarding a “bloody t-shirt” and an alleged failure to DNA test it, this Court notes that 

Petitioner failed to raise this issue in his § 2254 petition. (Doc. 1.) According to Rule 

2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, Petitioner must: (1) specify all the 

grounds for relief available, (2) state the facts supporting that relief, and (3) state the 

relief requested. See Rule 2(c) (1)-(3), Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings. 

Petitioner’s § 2254 petition failed to raise any issue regarding a “bloody t-shirt” or “DNA 

testing,” and he is therefore procedurally barred from raising the issue and cannot now do 

so as disguised objections to the R&R. For this reason, the Court overrules objections 

one and two. 

Finally, Petitioner’s third and fourth objections are similarly beyond the scope of 

the R&R and raise objections to the Magistrate’s August 6, 2013 Order (Doc. 23) 

denying his request for appointment of counsel. For this reason, this Court will overrule 

objections three and four. 

 Accordingly, after an independent review, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

Case 4:12-cv-00171-JGZ Document 25 Filed 10/25/13 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 

 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is ADOPTED. 

 2. Petitioner’s Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 

by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 1) is DENIED. 

 3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in this matter and close its file. 

 Dated this 25th day of October, 2013. 

Case 4:12-cv-00171-JGZ Document 25 Filed 10/25/13 Page 3 of 3