Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01301/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01301-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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

David Jonathan Emden, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Steve Waugh, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-14-1301-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus (the "Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 7) and the Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle 

(Doc. 18). On July 13, 2011, Petitioner pled guilty in Yavapai County Superior Court, 

pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of aggravated assault pursuant to domestic 

violence, one count of driving under the influence, and one count of disorderly conduct 

pursuant to domestic violence. (Doc. 18 at 3). At the same hearing, the trial court 

sentenced Petitioner to three years of supervised probation, the terms of which included 

incarceration in the Yavapai County jail. (Id.). Petitioner subsequently violated the term 

of his probation that prohibited him from consuming alcohol, admitting that he did so 

repeatedly. (Doc. 18 at 4). At the disposition hearing on May 20, 2013, the trial court 

revoked probation on all three counts and imposed a total sentence of 30 months in 

prison. (Doc. 18 at 4). 

Case 2:14-cv-01301-DJH Document 19 Filed 09/15/15 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

 Petitioner raised two claims for relief in the Petition, alleging that the sentences 

imposed by the trial court after revoking his probation violated the Double Jeopardy 

Clause, and claiming the sentences should have run concurrently rather than 

consecutively. (Doc. 18 at 6). On March 2, 2015, Petitioner filed a notice of change of 

address indicating that he had been released from custody. (Doc. 18 at 7). The address 

he provided is a Post Office box in Lake Havasu City, Arizona. (Id.). 

 After full consideration and analysis of the issues, Judge Boyle concluded that the 

Petition is moot because Petitioner has already received the only relief he was seeking, 

release from custody. (Doc. 18 at 8). Accordingly, Judge Boyle recommends the 

Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. (Id.). 

 Judge Boyle advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections and 

that the failure to file timely objections "may result in the acceptance of the Report and 

Recommendation by the district court without further review." (Doc. 18 at 9) (citing 

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). The 

parties have not filed objections and the time to do so has expired. Absent any 

objections, the Court is not required to review the findings and recommendations in the 

R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (The relevant provision of the 

Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any 

review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Reyna-Tapia, 328 

F.3d at 1121 (same); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo 

any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). 

 Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R&R and agrees with its findings and 

recommendations. The Court will, therefore, accept the R&R and deny the Petition. See 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”); 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Boyle's R&R (Doc. 18) is accepted and 

Case 2:14-cv-01301-DJH Document 19 Filed 09/15/15 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

27 

28 

adopted as the order of this Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 7) is denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases, a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis

on appeal are denied because dismissal of the 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 Court shall terminate this action 

and enter judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 15th day of September, 2015. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 2:14-cv-01301-DJH Document 19 Filed 09/15/15 Page 3 of 3