Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00059/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00059-1/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 

Julio Cesar Tapia, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-00059-TUC-RM

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Julio Cesar Tapia’s Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1), and a Report and Recommendation 

(Doc. 13) issued by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau. Judge Rateau recommends 

denying Petitioner’s § 2254 Petition as untimely. Petitioner filed an Objection (Doc. 19) 

to Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation. 

 A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a 

magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing 

2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. This Court has made a full and 

independent review of the instant Petition, the Report and Recommendation, and the 

record. The Court finds that Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation appropriately 

recommends denial of the Petition as untimely. Nothing in Petitioner’s Objection alters 

any of the conclusions made by Judge Rateau. 

 Before Petitioner can appeal this Court’s judgment, a certificate of appealability 

Case 4:13-cv-00059-RM Document 21 Filed 02/18/16 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 

must issue. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). A certificate may issue 

“only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2). A substantial showing is made if “reasonable jurists 

could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner,” 

or if “the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quotation omitted). Upon review 

of the record in light of the standards for granting a certificate of appealability, the Court 

concludes that a certificate shall not issue, as the resolution of the Petition is not 

debatable among reasonable jurists and does not deserve encouragement to proceed 

further. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

 1. Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) is 

accepted and adopted. 

 2. Petitioner’s Objection (Doc. 19) is overruled. 

 3. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied. 

 4. This case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to 

enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 

 5. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 

 Dated this 17th day of February, 2016. 

Honorable Rosemary Márquez

United States District Judge

Case 4:13-cv-00059-RM Document 21 Filed 02/18/16 Page 2 of 2