Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-02435/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-02435-0/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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Carlester Sharrod Hayes, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Arizona, State of, 

Respondent.

No. CV-15-02435-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is United States Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf’s Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”)(Doc. 26) concluding that the Court should deny and dismiss 

the pending Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2254 (Doc. 10). Petitioner timely filed a Response to All Parties (Doc. 27), which this 

Court construes as his Objections to the R&R. Therefore the Court reviews the R&R de 

novo. Upon that review, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety, and for the reasons 

competently and clearly stated in the R&R, the Court will deny and dismiss the Second 

Amended Petition with prejudice as both grounds for relief contained therein were not 

exhausted in the state court, and are now procedurally defaulted; no statutory tolling 

applied; and Petitioner failed to show cause and prejudice for equitable tolling. Finally, 

Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any qualification for the Schlupp gateway. 

 Petitioner’s Objections fail to address the issues raised in the R&R. He spends 

more than half of his two-page Objection arguing the merits of his ground that the police 

report in his case is inconsistent with the charging document, but the Court does not reach 

Case 2:15-cv-02435-JJT Document 29 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

the merits of his Petition until he has satisfied the procedureal requirements of AEDPA. 

Petitioner does attempt to reargue his mental impairment as a reason to invoke equitable 

tolling, but he raises no argument or fact that the R&R has not already addressed and 

correctly dispensed. 

 For all of the above reasons, and as set forth in the R&R, 

 IT IS ORDERED adopting the R&R in its entirety 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying and dismissing with prejudice the Second 

Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc. 10). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability in this matter 

as reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s assessment of the claims debatable or 

wrong. 

 Dated this 7th day of September, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-02435-JJT Document 29 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 2