Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-04050/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-04050-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lorenzo Aaron Pogue-Fuentes,

Petitioner,

v. 

State of Arizona, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-18-04050-PHX-MTL

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R & R) by 

Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns, recommending that this Court deny and dismiss 

with prejudice Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 13) 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 22.) Petitioner did not file any objections to the 

R & R. For reasons stated below, the Court will adopt Judge Burns’ recommendation for 

dismissal of the Amended Petition. 

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner Lorenzo Aaron Pogue-Fuentes filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus on November 13, 2018. (Doc. 1.) On January 24, 2019, the Court dismissed the 

Petition with leave to amend because it did not allege that Petitioner was in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or treaties of the United States. (Doc. 9 at 2-3.) On May 2, 

2019, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition, raising four grounds for relief under the 

United States Constitution. (Doc. 13.) Respondents filed a Response (Doc. 18) and 

Petitioner did not file a Reply. (Doc. 22 at 1.) The R & R concludes that each of the four 

Case 2:18-cv-04050-MTL Document 23 Filed 04/10/20 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

grounds asserted in the Amended Petition are procedurally defaulted without an excuse 

for the default. (Doc. 22 at 9.) Therefore, the R & R recommends that the Amended 

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

The R & R, which was entered on January 24, 2020, informed the parties that they 

would have “fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of [the R & R] within 

which to file specific written objections with the Court” and that “[f]ailure to timely file 

objections to the [R & R] may result in the acceptance of the [R & R] by the district court 

without further review.” (Doc. 22 at 10.) To date, Petitioner has not filed any written 

objections to the R & R. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

When a federal district court reviews a state prisoner’s habeas corpus petition 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, “it must decide whether the petitioner is ‘in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.’” Coleman v. 

Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 730 (1991) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254). When reviewing a 

Magistrate Judge’s R & R, this Court reviews de novo those portions of the report to 

which an objection is made and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

Parties have fourteen days from the service of a copy of the R & R to file specific written 

objections with the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). District courts are not required to 

conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

III. DISCUSSION

Having reviewed the R & R, and no Objections having been made by any party, 

the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the R & R.

Petitioner did not ask the Court to issue a certificate of appealability. But this 

Court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse 

to the applicant. Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. A certificate of 

appealability may only issue when the petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the 

Case 2:18-cv-04050-MTL Document 23 Filed 04/10/20 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

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Petitioner has not made a 

substantial showing that denying the Amended Petition would deny him a constitutional 

right. The Court therefore will not issue a certificate of appealability.

IV. CONCLUSION

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is accepted.

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

Corpus (Doc. 13) is denied and dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a certificate of appealability. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter final judgment 

consistent with this Order and dismiss the case. 

Dated this 10th day of April, 2020.

Case 2:18-cv-04050-MTL Document 23 Filed 04/10/20 Page 3 of 3