Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00087/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00087-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John William Seitz,

 Petitioner,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-14-00087-PHX-PGR (MHB)

 ORDER

 

 

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) of

Magistrate Judge Burns in light of petitioner Seitz’s Objection to the Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 17) and his Response to Respondent’s Request to Denied

[sic] Petitioner’s Habeas Courpus [sic] Petition (Doc. 19), which the Court construes

as a supplement to his objections, the Court finds that the petitioner’s objections

should be overruled as being without merit because the Magistrate Judge correctly

concluded that the petitioner’s timely-filed amended habeas corpus petition (Doc. 7),

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be denied in its entirety.

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the Court is precluded from

reaching the merits of the four grounds the petitioner raised in his amended petition

because the petitioner procedurally defaulted on all of those grounds inasmuch as

Case 2:14-cv-00087-PGR Document 21 Filed 06/02/15 Page 1 of 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

1

The petitioner’s argument in his Objection that the respondents have 

improperly failed to address the “real issues” in his amended petition, i.e. those

issues he raised directed at violations of his due process rights, because they filed

a “limited answer” to his amended petition is meritless. The Court’s order (Doc. 8),

entered on June 3, 2014, which required an answer from the respondents, provided

in part that “Respondents must not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer but

may file an answer limited to relevant affirmative defenses, including but not limited

to, statute of limitations, procedural bar, or non-retroactivity.” The respondents’

“limited answer” was properly directed at the procedural issues that bar the

consideration of the merits of the petitioner’s amended petition.

- 2 -

he failed to properly present them to the state courts. The Court also agrees with

the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner has not established any cause for his

procedural defaults sufficient to excuse them, which includes his claims of ineffective

assistance of his counsel, nor has he shown that any fundamental miscarriage of

justice would occur if the merits of his claims are not reached.1

 Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that petitioner John Seitz’s Motion Requesting Status of

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 20) is denied as moot given the issuance

of this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 16) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner John Seitz’s [Amended] Petition

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody

(Doc. 7) is denied and that this action is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability shall not issue

and that the petitioner is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis because the

dismissal of the amended habeas 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 the Court shall enter judgment

Case 2:14-cv-00087-PGR Document 21 Filed 06/02/15 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

accordingly.

DATED this 2nd day of June, 2015.

Case 2:14-cv-00087-PGR Document 21 Filed 06/02/15 Page 3 of 3