Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_02-cv-02543/USCOURTS-azd-3_02-cv-02543-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Clifford E. Earixson, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Deputy Warden S. Walker, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-02-2543-PHX-ROS

ORDER

On December 5, 2006, Magistrate Judge Virginia Mathis issued a Report and

Recommendation ("R&R). (Doc. 65) Petitioner filed objections to the R&R. (Doc. 70) For

the following reasons, the Court will adopt the R&R and dismiss the petition.

I. Background

On August 6, 2004, the Magistrate Judge issued a R&R recommending that the

petition for writ of habeas corpus be granted. On March 25, 2005, the Court adopted that

R&R in part. (Doc. 49) The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's conclusions on certain

grounds, but rejected the recommendation that the petition be granted. The case was referred

back to the Magistrate Judge for a supplemental R&R. On May 2, 2005, the Magistrate

Judge issued a supplemental R&R recommending the petition be denied in full. Petitioner

did not file any objections to the supplemental R&R. Instead, Petitioner sought a stay to

Case 3:02-cv-02543-ROS Document 71 Filed 03/05/07 Page 1 of 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

 Petitioner was confused about the proper method for filing an amended complaint.

The Magistrate Judge sent Petitioner a copy of the Local Rule setting forth the requirements

for amended pleadings and gave him three chances to submit an amended pleading.

Petitioner never submitted a pleading in compliance with the rules of procedure. According

to the Supreme Court, "[d]istrict judges have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to

pro se litigants." Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004). In fact, providing legal advice

to Petitioner "would undermine [the Court's] role as impartial decisionmaker[]." Id. 

- 2 -

allow him to exhaust state remedies on claims not contained in his original habeas petition.

(Doc. 56) The stay was granted. (Doc. 56) 

After exhausting his state remedies, Petitioner sought leave to amend his complaint

to include the new claims. (Doc. 57) The Magistrate Judge denied the motion to file an

amended petition because Petitioner had not complied with the rules of procedure. (Doc. 59)

Petitioner filed another motion to amend, which was also denied based on the failure to

comply with the rules of procedure. (Doc. 60, 62) Petitioner filed a third motion to amend,

which suffered from the same flaws as his previous motions. (Doc. 63) The Magistrate

Judge denied with prejudice the third motion to amend. (Doc. 64) The Magistrate Judge

then issued another R&R, referring the Court to the May 2005 supplemental R&R for the

analysis of Petitioner's remaining claims. Petitioner filed objections to the latest R&R, but

the objections are aimed at the Magistrate Judge's refusal to grant the motions to amend.1

Petitioner made no objection on the legal or factual issues addressed in the May 2005 R&R.

II. Analysis

The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is "clear that the

district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if

objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

1126 (D. Ariz. 2003) ("Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of

factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, 'but not otherwise."'). District

Case 3:02-cv-02543-ROS Document 71 Filed 03/05/07 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

courts are not required to conduct "any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject

of an objection." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

Petitioner's objections are aimed at the Magistrate Judge's order denying him leave to

amend his petition. Because Petitioner made no objection to the Magistrate Judge's factual

or legal conclusions regarding the resolution of his claims, the R&R will be adopted in full

and the petition will be denied. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the May 2, 2005 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and

the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. 

DATED this 5th day of March, 2007.

Case 3:02-cv-02543-ROS Document 71 Filed 03/05/07 Page 3 of 3