Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00335/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00335-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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 

Robert Meeks, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Susan McClintock, 

Respondent.

No. CV-12-00335-TUC-RCC

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. (Docs. 1, 4 (supplement)), Respondent’s Answer (Doc. 10) 

and Petitioner’s Traverse (Doc. 11). This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Pyle, 

who issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25). Petitioner filed objections to Judge 

Pyle’s R & R (Doc. 27) to which Respondent Responded (Doc. 28). Thereafter, 

Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to file a Reply to Respondent’s Responses to 

Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 29). Respondent filed a Response in Opposition to 

Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply to the Respondent’s responses to 

Petitioner’s objections (Doc. 30), and Petitioner filed a Response to the same (Doc. 31). 

 In addition to the aforementioned objections and motions, Petitioner has since 

filed a series of supplemental motions. Petitioner filed a Motion to Add New Legal 

Authority to Petitioner’s §2241 Petition (Doc. 33), a Motion for a Telephonic Status 

Conference (Doc. 34) and a Motion to Add New Legal Authority Supporting that this 

Court has Jurisdiction Over Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. §2241 Petition (Doc. 35). 

Case 4:12-cv-00335-RCC Document 36 Filed 07/24/15 Page 1 of 5
- 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’s Motion to file a Reply to Respondent’s Responses to Petitioner’s 

Objections (Doc. 29) is denied, and Petitioner’s objections to Magistrate Judge Pyle’s 

Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27) are also denied. This Court accepts and adopts 

Magistrate Judge Pyle’s August 28, 2014 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25) as the 

findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court. Further, Petitioner’s supplemental 

motions to add new legal authority and request for a telephonic status conference are 

denied. (Docs. 33-35). 

I. Report and Recommendation 

A. Background 

 The factual and procedural background in this case is thoroughly detailed in 

Magistrate Judge Pyle’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25). This Court fully 

incorporates by reference the “Factual and Procedural History” section of the Report and 

Recommendation into this Order. 

B. Discussion

The duties of the District Court in connection with a Report and Recommendation 

are set forth in Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). The district court may “accept, reject, or modify the recommended 

disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with 

instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

 Where the parties object to a Report and Recommendation, “[a] judge of the 

[District] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Report & 

Recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. 

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). 

 The Court will not disturb a magistrate judge’s order unless his factual findings 

are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(A). “[T]he magistrate judge’s decision...is entitled to great deference by the 

district court.” U.S. v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 2001). A failure to 

raise an objection waives all objections to the magistrate judge’s findings of fact. Turner 

Case 4:12-cv-00335-RCC Document 36 Filed 07/24/15 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s 

conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an 

issue on appeal.” Id. (internal citations omitted). 

 On September 12, 2014 Petitioner filed timely objections to Magistrate Pyle’s 

Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27). Therein, Petitioner makes no objection to the 

Factual and Procedural History section of the Report and Recommendation. See Doc. 27 

at p. 1. Petitioner does object to the standard of review applied to his Petition, as well as 

to the conclusions drawn by Judge Pyle regarding: the materiality of United States v. 

Colvin, 353 F.3d 569 (7th Cir. 2003)(en banc); Petitioner’s “actual innocence” of 18 

U.S.C. § 924(c); and jurisdiction. See Doc. 27 at pp. 2-8. 

 Petitioner’s objections raise issues and arguments that were considered and 

appropriately addressed by Judge Pyle. Moreover, Petitioner’s objections do not 

undermine Judge Pyle’s well-reasoned conclusion that Petition failed to demonstrate he is 

“actually innocent” of violating 18 U.S.C. §924(c) in light of his two, separate, 18 U.S.C. 

§1951 robbery convictions. See Doc. 25 at pp. 11-13. 

 After Respondent filed its Response to Petitioner’s Objections to Magistrate 

Pyle’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28), Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to 

Reply to Respondent’s Response [to Petitioner’s Objections to the R&R] (Doc. 29). 

Petitioner’s Motion contained both the prayer for relief and the substantive, unsolicited 

reply. This Court did not grant leave for Petitioner to file a reply pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 72(b)(2). Leave is not warranted in this matter as Petitioner cannot overcome Judge 

Pyle’s thoroughly and correctly analyzed conclusion that Petitioner failed to demonstrate 

he is “actually innocent” of violating 18 U.S.C. §924(c). See Doc. 25 at p. 13. 

 This Court has made a de novo review of those portions of the Report & 

Recommendation to which Petitioner’s objections were made. This Court considers the 

Report and Recommendation to be comprehensive and well-reasoned. 

II. Supplemental Motions (Docs. 33-35) 

Petitioner seeks to supplement his Petition to add citations to case law that he 

Case 4:12-cv-00335-RCC Document 36 Filed 07/24/15 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

contends supports the conclusions that this Court has jurisdiction to hear his claim and 

that violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 is not a crime of violence and, therefore, cannot qualify 

as a predicate offense for his §924(c) convictions. See Docs. 33, 35. The cases cited by 

Petitioner are repetitive of cases he has already cited in his Supplement (Doc. 4) to his 

Petition, in his Traverse (Doc. 11), and in his Objections to Magistrate Judge Pyle’s 

Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27). Moreover, the additional authority does not 

address, alter, or undermine the fact that, even if §241 could not constitute the predicate 

offense for Petitioner’s successive §924(c) convictions, his convictions under §1951 can, 

thereby rendering this Court without jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s Petition. See, 

Doc. 27 at 11-14. Accordingly, Petitioner’s requests to supplement the record (Docs. 33, 

35) are denied. 

 Petitioner’s request for a telephonic status conference reiterates his objections to 

Magistrate Judge Pyle’s Report and Recommendation. See Doc. 34 and Doc. 27. Such a 

status conference is unnecessary as this Order disposes of need for further discussion of 

the status of this matter. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

 1. Petitioner’s Motion to for Leave to File a Reply to Respondent’s Response to 

Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29) is DENIED. 

Accordingly, the portions of Petitioner’s Motion amounting to a substantive reply (Doc. 

29, Memorandum of Points and Authorities) are STRUCK from the record. 

2. Petitioner’s Objections to Magistrate Judge Pyle’s Report and Recommendation 

(Doc. 25) are DENIED. 

 3. The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Pyle’s August 28, 2014 

Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25) as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of 

this Court. 

 4. Petitioner’s Motion to Add New Legal Authority to Petitioner’s §2241 Petition 

(Doc. 33) is DENIED. 

 5. Petitioner’s Motion for a Telephonic Status Conference (Doc. 34) is DENIED. 

Case 4:12-cv-00335-RCC Document 36 Filed 07/24/15 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 

 6. Petitioner’s Motion to Add New Legal Authority Supporting that this Court has 

Jurisdiction Over Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. §2241 Petition (Doc. 35) is DENIED. 

 7. Petitioner’s Petitioner under 28 U.S.C. §2241 (Doc. 1) and this case are 

DISMISSED. 

 8. The Clerk of the Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 

9. Although Petitioner has brought his claims in a § 2241 petition, a certificate of 

appealability is required where a § 2241 petition attacks the petitioner’s conviction or 

sentence. See Porter v. Adams, 244 F.3d 1006 (9th. 2001). Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the 

Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, in the event Movant 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 22nd day of July, 2015. 

Case 4:12-cv-00335-RCC Document 36 Filed 07/24/15 Page 5 of 5