Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02520/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02520-1/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 1 On March 23, 2009, Petitioner pleaded guilty to manslaughter, a dangerous offense.

Pursuant to the plea agreement, he received a sentence of 16 years. At sentencing Petitioner

waived his appearance at any future restitution hearing.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Salvador Vivas Diaz,

Petitioner, 

v.

Charles L. Ryan, et. al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 11-CV-2520-PHX-PGR (MHB)

 ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Burns (Doc.

10), which addresses Petitioner’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed December

20, 2011, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). Petitioner filed objections to the Report and

Recommendation, together with a motion for discovery and for an extension of time to file

objections. (Docs. 11, 12.)

DISCUSSION

Petitioner’s habeas petition raised five grounds for relief.1

 Magistrate Judge Burns

found that Grounds One and Two, in which Petitioner challenged the application of an

aggravating factor and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, were procedurally barred

based on independent and adequate state law grounds. Magistrate Judge Burns found that

Ground Three, alleging that Petitioner was denied his right to be present at his restitution

hearing, was both procedurally barred and without merit. Magistrate Judge Burns found that

Grounds Four and Five, alleging a denial of Petitioner’s due process and equal protection

Case 2:11-cv-02520-PGR Document 14 Filed 03/19/13 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 -

rights and raising a claim of actual innocence, are procedurally defaulted because they were

not presented in state court. Finally, Magistrate Judge Burns concluded that Petitioner failed

to show cause and prejudice to excuse the defaults or that a fundamental miscarriage of

justice would result if the claims were not reviewed. 

Petitioner’s objections (Doc. 12) to the Report and Recommendation consist of a

request for additional, unspecified state court documents and a reference to the arguments

set forth in his reply brief (Doc. 9). Magistrate Judge Burns addressed Petitioner’s arguments

and correctly determined that he is not entitled to habeas relief. 

Having considered the matter de novo in light of Petitioner’s objections, the Court will

adopt the Report and Recommendation, deny the habeas petition, and dismiss the action.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Burns’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 10) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED by the Court. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is

DISMISSED and DENIED with prejudice. (Doc. 1.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING a Certificate of Appealability and

DENYING leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because Petitioner has not made

a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Petitioner’s motion for discovery and an

extension of the deadline for responding to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 12.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING as moot Petitioner’s motion for a status

report. (Doc. 13.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

DATED this 18th day of March, 2013.

Case 2:11-cv-02520-PGR Document 14 Filed 03/19/13 Page 2 of 2