Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03019/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03019-1/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

Jimmy Haul,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-3019-PHX-SMM

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”). The matter was referred to Magistrate

Judge Michelle H. Burns for a Report and Recommendation. On November 13, 2007, the

Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court (Dkt. 11). On

November 23, 2007, Petitioner filed his Objection (Dkt. 12) to the Report and

Recommendation. After considering Judge Burns’s Report and Recommendation and the

arguments raised in Petitioner's Objections thereto, the Court now issues the following ruling.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court “must

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,”

and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

made by the Magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d

Case 2:06-cv-03019-SMM Document 13 Filed 12/13/07 Page 1 of 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

 1The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 11).

- 2 -

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454

(9th Cir. 1983)). 

DISCUSSION1

Petitioner seeks relief on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and the

validity of his plea agreement. The magistrate judge determined that Petitioner has

procedurally defaulted on a subclaim of his ineffective assistance of counsel argument, and

that Petitioner had not shown “cause and prejudice” for his procedural default, nor that the

failure to review the claims would result in a fundamental “miscarriage of justice.” The

magistrate judge also determined that Petitioner could not prevail on the merits of his

remaining claims. Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim failed because

Petitioner did not show deficient performance by his attorney, and Petitioner suffered no

impact from the absence of a specific argument on his mental health issues. Regarding

Petitioner’s challenge to the validity of his plea agreement, the magistrate judge determined

that Petitioner had not right to present mitigating evidence, and that the trial court adequately

considered whether the plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. Having

reviewed the legal conclusions of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge,

and the objections having been made by Petitioner thereto, the Court finds that the Magistrate

Judge adequately addressed all of Petitioner's arguments. Therefore, the Court hereby

incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation

of Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns (Dkt. 11).

Case 2:06-cv-03019-SMM Document 13 Filed 12/13/07 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(Dkt. 1) is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DATED this 13th day of December, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-03019-SMM Document 13 Filed 12/13/07 Page 3 of 3