Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00127/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00127-1/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

Paul Garcia, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-15-0127-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

(the "Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) filed on January 26, 2015, and the 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 11) issued by United States Magistrate 

Judge David K. Duncan on October 1, 2015. Following a jury trial in May 2012, 

Petitioner was convicted of one count of disorderly conduct, a “dangerous” offense under 

Arizona law; two counts of aggravated assault, also dangerous offenses; one count of 

theft of means of transportation; and one count of unlawful flight from a law enforcement 

vehicle. (Doc. 11 at 1). Petitioner was sentenced in July 2012 to a combination of 

concurrent and consecutive sentences totaling 25.75 years in prison. (Id. at 2). 

 Petitioner raised several claims for relief in the Petition, alleging that that he 

received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel (1) failed to inform him 

that a jury could decide aggravating factors, (2) failed to present mitigating evidence at 

his sentencing, and (3) failed to object to his excessive sentence. Petitioner further 

alleges that his right to due process was violated when the prosecutor failed to notify the 

Case 2:15-cv-00127-DJH Document 12 Filed 10/23/15 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 

trial court that a DNA test was never performed on a key piece of evidences. (Doc. 11 at 

3). After consideration and analysis of the issues, Judge Duncan concluded that 

Petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies for the claims asserted in this action, 

and that he is now barred from doing so. (Id. at 3-5). Accordingly, Judge Duncan 

recommends the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 5). 

 Judge Duncan advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections and 

that the failure to file timely objections "may result in the acceptance of the Report and 

Recommendation by the district court without further review." (Doc. 11 at 5) (citing 

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). The 

parties have not filed objections and the time to do so has expired. Absent any 

objections, the Court is not required to review the findings and recommendations in the 

R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (The relevant provision of the 

Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any 

review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Reyna-Tapia, 328 

F.3d at 1121 (same); 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.”). 

 Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R&R and agrees with its findings and 

recommendations. The Court will, therefore, accept the R&R and deny the Petition. See 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”); 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Duncan's R&R (Doc. 11) is accepted

and adopted as the order of this Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

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

Section 2254 Cases, a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis

Case 2:15-cv-00127-DJH Document 12 Filed 10/23/15 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 

on appeal are denied because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural 

bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action 

and enter judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 22nd day of October, 2015. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-00127-DJH Document 12 Filed 10/23/15 Page 3 of 3