Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00959/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00959-2/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

George Johnson, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-959-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Petitioner

George Johnson. (Dkt. # 7.) On April 15, 2010, Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan issued

a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) in which he proposed that the Court deny the

habeas petition without prejudice because Mr. Johnson’s state-court petition for postconviction relief was still pending before the Maricopa County Superior Court. (Dkt. # 15.)

Mr. Johnson timely filed Written Objections to the R & R on April 26, 2010 (Dkt. # 16);

nonetheless, because those objections are without merit, the Court accepts the R & R as set

forth below. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal district courts “‘may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings

or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].’” Carillo-Lozano v. Stolc, 669 F.

Supp.2d 1074, 1076 (D. Ariz. 2009) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)); see United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While a district judge “must review the

Case 2:09-cv-00959-GMS Document 17 Filed 05/05/10 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

- 2 -

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made,” Schmidt v.

Johnstone, 263 F. Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003)), no such review is necessary when

the parties do not raise objections. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (holding that

district courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the

subject of objection”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“[T]he court shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.”); CarrilloLozano, 669 F. Supp. at 1076 (same). 

DISCUSSION

State prisoners seeking to challenge their convictions or sentences through a writ of

habeas corpus must first exhaust state judicial remedies by giving to the highest state court

a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each issue they wish to raise in federal court. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c). When a habeas petitioner has post-conviction proceedings pending in

state court, the exhaustion requirement is not satisfied. Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632,

634 (9th Cir. 1983). Even if the issue that a habeas petitioner plans to raise in his federal

petition has been finally settled in state court, and hence seemingly exhausted, the petitioner

must await the outcome of any pending state-court challenges to his state conviction before

proceeding in federal court. Id. In addition, a federal petitioner may not complete the

exhaustion process in state court after filing a federal petition with then-unexhausted claims:

“The appropriate time to assess whether a prisoner has exhausted his state remedies is when

the federal habeas petition is filed, not when it comes on for hearing in the district court or

court of appeals.” Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 889 (9th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted)

(quoting Brown v. Maass, 11 F.3d 914, 915 (9th Cir.1993) (per curiam)); see also

Domaingue v. Butterworth, 641 F.2d 8, 14 (1st Cir. 1981) (declining to take judicial notice

of state court decision allegedly establishing exhaustion because that decision was rendered

after the petitioner filed his federal habeas petition).

In this case, Judge Duncan recommended that the Court deny Mr. Johnson’s habeas

petition because his “post-conviction proceedings are still pending” in Arizona State Court.

(Dkt. # 15 at 2.) In his Written Objections, Mr. Johnson provides a minute entry from

Case 2:09-cv-00959-GMS Document 17 Filed 05/05/10 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

1

Dismissal for failure to exhaust is neither a dismissal with prejudice nor a denial on

the merits; therefore, should Mr. Johnson return to federal court with another petition after

exhausting his state claims, the latter petition will not be considered a “second or successive

petition” subject to heightened procedural scrutiny. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 485–86

(2000).

- 3 -

Maricopa County Superior indicating that his state court proceedings were dismissed on

April 9, 2010, six days before Judge Duncan issued the R & R. (See Dkt. # 16 at 2.) Yet,

while it appears that Mr. Johnson’s petition for collateral review is no longer pending in state

court, Gatlin instructs that his habeas petition must be dismissed because “[t]he appropriate

time to assess whether a prisoner has exhausted his state remedies is when the federal habeas

petition is filed, not when it comes on for hearing in the district court or court of appeals.”

See 189 F.3d at 889. Mr. Johnson filed the instant Petition on October 2, 2009. (Dkt. # 6.)

At that time, his state post-conviction relief proceedings were still pending. (See Dkt. # 16

at 2.) Accordingly, the R & R correctly determined that Mr. Johnson’s habeas Petition should

be dismissed for failure to exhaust.1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Judge Duncan’s R & R (Dkt. # 15) is ACCEPTED as set forth in this Order;. 

(2) Mr. Johnson’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and request for an evidentiary

hearing (Dkt. # 7) are DENIED without prejudice;

(3) The Clerk of Court is directed to TERMINATE this action. 

(4) A certificate of appealability is DENIED with respect to each of the claims

asserted in Mr. Johnson’s Petition.

DATED this 5th day of May, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00959-GMS Document 17 Filed 05/05/10 Page 3 of 3