Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00344/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00344-3/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Timothy Paul Olmos, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-11-00344-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before this Court are a Report and Recommendation (R&R) issued by 

Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade regarding Claim Thirteen of Petitioner Timothy Paul 

Olmos’s Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc. 87) and Petitioner’s Motion for Certificate of 

Appealability (Doc. 88). For the following reasons, the Court accepts the R&R, denies 

Petitioner’s request for relief on Claim Thirteen, and denies Petitioner’s Motion for a 

Certificate of Appealability. 

BACKGROUND 

 Olmos was indicted on one count of child molestation, one count of sexual 

conduct with a minor, and one count of sexual abuse in Maricopa Superior Court on 

August 20, 2004. (Doc. 40-1, Ex. A.) Under each count, the State alleged that Olmos had 

committed a dangerous crime against children. On February 25, 2005, the jury returned a 

verdict of guilty on the charges of child molestation and sexual abuse, but were unable to 

arrive at a verdict on the charge of sexual conduct with a minor. (Id., Ex. C.) The trial 

court imposed a mitigated 15-year prison sentence, placed Olmos on lifetime probation, 

and required him to register as a sex offender. (Doc. 40-4, Exs. E, F.) 

Case 2:11-cv-00344-GMS Document 93 Filed 03/10/14 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

 As detailed in this Court’s earlier order concerning Olmos’s Petition for Habeas 

Corpus, Olmos appealed his conviction and sentence, filed four petitions for postconviction relief, and eventually filed the instant writ of habeas corpus in federal court. 

(Doc. 78 at 2–3.) Olmos’s federal petition asserted fourteen grounds for relief. (Doc. 1.) 

In his Claim Thirteen, Olmos alleged that the registration requirements of the Sex 

Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”) violate his First Amendment 

rights. (Doc. 1 at 24.) Magistrate Judge Bade issued an R&R recommending denial of the 

Petition and Certificate of Appealability. (Doc. 67.) Olmos timely filed objections to that 

R&R, and the Court reviewed the Petition de novo. (Doc. 78.) The Court ultimately 

accepted in part and denied in part Judge Bade’s R&R. (Id. at 36.) Because it had not 

been briefed, the Court did not make a merits determination regarding Claim Thirteen. 

Instead, the Court ordered that the parties file supplemental briefing on the issue, and 

referred the case back to Magistrate Judge Bade for further consideration. (Id. at 34.) 

 The parties filed their supplemental briefing (Docs. 80, 85, 86) and Magistrate 

Judge Bade issued a second R&R solely on this claim (Doc. 87). In her R&R, Magistrate 

Judge Bade recommended dismissal of Claim Thirteen on the grounds that Olmos’s First 

Amendment challenge is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and thus the Court lacks 

jurisdiction to hear the claim in that context. (Doc. 87.) Olmos did not file objections to 

Judge Bade’s second R&R, but did file a Motion for Certificate of Appealability. (Doc. 

88.) While the Court would typically treat this Motion as timely filed objections, Olmos 

did not raise any arguments related to Claim Thirteen in his Motion. Thus, the Court is 

unable to consider the Motion to include any timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge 

Bade’s second R&R. The Court will review the second R&R and will then consider 

Olmos’s Motion. 

Discussion 

I. Report and Recommendation Regarding Claim Thirteen

 Petitioner did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 

review the R&R. See United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 

Case 2:11-cv-00344-GMS Document 93 Filed 03/10/14 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any 

review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's 

disposition that has been properly objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the 

R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court agrees that Petitioner’s First Amendment 

challenge to SORNA’s registration requirement lacks the necessary nexus to his custody 

required to confer jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

 The Court will accept the R&R and deny Claim Thirteen of the Petition (Doc. 1 at 

24), having dismissed the other counts of the Petition in response to Magistrate Judge 

Bade’s first R&R in this case (Doc. 78). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the 

district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge 

may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or 

return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). 

II. Motion for Certificate of Appealability 

 Petitioner moves for a Certificate of Appealability. (Doc. 88.) He seeks to appeal 

regarding seven issues: (1) whether the Court erred by refusing to accept his 

supplemental memorandum; (2) whether the Court erred when it ruled he had not 

overcome the procedural bar on his claim regarding the State’s use of peremptory 

challenges; (3) whether the Court erred in its analysis of Claim Six; (4) whether the Court 

erred in ruling that SORNA complies with the necessary and proper clause as applied to 

individuals convicted in state court; (5) whether the Court erred when it denied his 

motion to stay his mixed petition while he exhausted certain claims in state court; (6) 

whether the Court erred when it found that SORNA does not violate the Equal Protection 

Clause; and (7) whether the Court erred when it found Claims One, Two, Four, Five, 

Eight, Ten, and Fourteen were procedurally barred. (Doc. 88 at 1–2.) 

 In her first and second R&Rs (Doc. 67 at 30; Doc. 87 at 9), Magistrate Judge Bade 

recommended that the Certificate of Appealability be denied as the dismissal of the 

Case 2:11-cv-00344-GMS Document 93 Filed 03/10/14 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

Petition is justified by a plan procedural bar and because Petitioner has not made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The Court agrees. Pursuant to 

Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court declines to issue a 

Certificate of Appealability because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 

procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

 Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Bade’s R&R (Doc. 87) is accepted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Claim Thirteen of Petitioner’s Petition of Writ 

of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Certificate of 

Appealability (Doc. 88) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a 

certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 

procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

 Dated this 10th of March, 2014. 

Case 2:11-cv-00344-GMS Document 93 Filed 03/10/14 Page 4 of 4