Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01394/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01394-1/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

Lawrence Eugene Greer, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-1394-PHX-EHC (VAM)

ORDER

On May 11, 2005, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Dkt. 1]. On

June 10, 2005, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Dkt. 4].

Respondents filed a Response to the Amended Pet it ion on September 19, 2005. [Dkts. 14,

15 & 16]. 

On November 16, 2005, Magistrate Judge Virginia A. Mathis issued a Rep ort and

Recommendation [Dkt. 21], recommending that Petitioner's Amended Petition be denied

because Petitioner's claims are procedurally barred, Petitioner having failed to raise them

in the two post-convict ion proceedings conducted in Maricopa County Superior Court

pursuant to Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).

On November 28, 2005, Petitioner filed an Objection. [Dkt. 22]. Petitioner argues that

he should not be held responsible for his counsel's failure to raise his claims in his postconviction proceedings before the Superior Court. Petit ioner filed his petitions pro se in

the two post-conviction proceedings held in Maricopa County Superior Court. [Dkt. 16,

Case 2:05-cv-01394-EHC Document 24 Filed 01/10/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

exs. I and MM ]. Petitioner's counsel appointed for the post-conviction proceedings found

no viable issues to raise on post-conviction review. [Dkt. 16, ex. M]. 

On December 23, 2005, Petitioner filed a Motion to Enforce Sanctions [Dkt. 23],

informing that the Court that Respondents did not file a Response to his Objection.

A district court judge reviews de novo the Report and Recommendation of a

Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

The Court having reviewed the record de novo, adopts in full the Report and

Recommendation of the Magist rat e Judge and incorporates the same as a part of this

Order.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of t he M agistrate Judge is

adopted in full. [Dkt. 21].

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioner's Amended Petition for a Writ of

Habeas Corpus is DENIED. [Dkt. 4].

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Enforce Sanct ions [Dkt. 23]

is DENIED.

DATED this 6th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01394-EHC Document 24 Filed 01/10/06 Page 2 of 2