Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00976/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00976-3/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

Fox Salerno, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora B. Schriro, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-976-PHX-ROS

ORDER

On April 1, 2005, Plaintiff filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #1).

On September 27, 2006, Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson issued a Report and

Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the petition be denied (Doc. #55). Petitioner

filed his Objections on October 11, 2006. 

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."'). 

Case 2:05-cv-00976-ROS Document 60 Filed 07/24/07 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 -

Petitioner reiterates his nine claims contained within his petition. He first argues that

the Magistrate Judge improperly concluded that claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 were

procedurally defaulted. Reviewing Plaintiff’s claims de novo, the Court concludes that for

the reasons state in the R&R, those claims are indeed procedurally defaulted and therefore

barred from federal habeas review. 

Second, Petitioner argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in concluding that

Petitioner’s claim 1 (improper post-arrest silence by prosecutor), claim 6 (ineffective

assistance of counsel) failed on the merits. For the reasons stated in the R&R, the Court

concludes that those claims do indeed fail on the merits. 

Finally, Petitioner argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in concluding that

Petitioner’s claim 7 failed on the merits. Petitioner also filed a Notice RE: Change of Law

(Doc. #57), stating that Cunningham v. California, 127 S.Ct. 856, 881 (U.S.Cal. 2007) makes

his sentence unconstitutional. He argues that Cunningham should be applied retroactively.

Although the retroactivity of Cunningham has not yet been addressed in the Ninth Circuit,

because Cunningham relies heavily on the new procedural rule announced in Blakely v.

Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and because the Ninth Circuit has already decided that

Blakely is not retroactive, then Cunningham is also not retroactive. For this reason, and

those reasons stated in the R&R, Petitioner’s Claim 7 also fails on the merits. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT the R&R (Doc. #55) is ADOPTED IN FULL.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus (Doc. #1) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Petitioner’s Motions for Ruling (Doc. #58, 59)

are DENIED AS MOOT.

DATED this 24th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-00976-ROS Document 60 Filed 07/24/07 Page 2 of 2