Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00649/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00649-1/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

-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kevin Ware, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Laurie Leider, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-0649-PHX-MHM (ECV)

ORDER

Petitioner proceeding pro se has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his guilty plea to one count of possession of marijuana for sale and

one count of endangerment entered in the Superior Court, Maricopa County, State of Arizona.

The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss who has issued

a Report and Recommendation that recommends that the Petition should be denied and

dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 10). Petitioner has not filed an objection to the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court 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). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)("[a] judge of the court shall

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings

or recommendations to which objection is made"). 

Case 2:05-cv-00649-MHM Document 11 Filed 09/13/06 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 -

DISCUSSION

The Court has considered the pleadings and documents of record in this case. The

Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommended rejection of Respondents' contention

that the holding in Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999), that, except in

habeas petitions in capital cases, claims of Arizona state prisoners are exhausted for purposes

of federal habeas once the Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled on them, appears to have been

overruled by the Supreme Court in Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004). In Castillo v.

McFadden, 399 F.3d 993, 998 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit reiterated the holding in

Swoopes. See, e.g., Skaggs v. Batros, 2006 WL 898160 (D.Ariz. 2006)(same). Regarding all

other issues, as neither party has filed objections, the Report and Recommendation is adopted

as the Order of the Court.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc.

10) as the Order of this Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1)

is denied and dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice.

DATED this 11th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00649-MHM Document 11 Filed 09/13/06 Page 2 of 2