Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00162/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00162-1/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

Rupert Ray Dixon, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-162-TUC-JMR

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S R&R AND DENYING

PETITION

This case involves a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 For a Writ of Habeas Corpus

filed by Petitioner Rupert Ray Dixon on March 20, 2009 (Doc. 1). On September 23, 2009,

after a thorough and well-documented analysis, Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Guerin issued

a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) to this Court, recommending that the Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied. On September 29, 2009 Petitioner filed his objections to

the R&R.

After an independent review of the record and a de novo review of the portions of the

R&R to which Petitioner has objected, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R&R in

whole. In his objections to the R&R, Petitioner does not raise any new issues of fact or law

but merely reiterates the arguments and claims he has already made in his Petition, his

Reply/Traverse to the Petition, and the briefs filed in his direct appeal and post-conviction

relief proceedings in state court. All of Petitioner’s arguments have been adequately

Case 4:09-cv-00162-JMR Document 22 Filed 09/14/10 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 -

addressed by the Magistrate Judge in her R&R. Petitioner’s claims are without merit and his

Petition must be denied.

In addition, Petitioner has filed numerous requests for an evidentiary hearing (see

Docs. 13, 15, 16, 19, 20). As the Magistrate Judge notes in her R&R, Petitioner is entitled

to an evidentiary hearing on a claim only if he alleges “facts that, if proven, would entitle him

to relief.” Turner v. Calderon, 281 F.3d 851, 890 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Tapia v. Roe, 189

F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 1999)). In other words, Petitioner “must allege a colorable

constitutional claim.” Id. Magistrate Judge Guerin is correct that here, Petitioner challenges

the legal conclusions of the state court without alleging any facts which, if proven, would

entitle him to relief. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of

Magistrate Judge Guerin (Doc. 18) is ADOPTED in whole. The Petition (Doc. 1) is

DENIED and this case is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and

enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions in this case are denied in

light of this Order.

DATED this 13th day of September, 2010.

Case 4:09-cv-00162-JMR Document 22 Filed 09/14/10 Page 2 of 2