Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00933/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00933-1/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Richard Rojas,

Petitioner,

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-15-00933-PHX-JJT

ORDER

At issue is Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Pending Exhaustion of State Court 

Remedies (Doc. 4); and the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14)(“R&R”) submitted in 

this matter by United States Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle, to which no party has filed 

objections despite the time to do so having expired. The R&R recommends that the 

Court deny Petitioner’s Motion to Stay as moot, because since its filing, the Supreme 

Court of Arizona has denied review of his post-conviction relief proceedings. But it

recommends granting Respondents’ request for a stay pending a decision by the Supreme 

Court of the United States in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 135 S. Ct. 1546, a matter pending 

in the current term.

Where a party fails to object to an R&R, the Court is free to accept the R&R 

without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 

2003). Judge Boyle so advised the parties in the R&R. (Doc. 14 at pp. 8-9). Though 

pursuant to the above law the Court is free to accept the R&R without more, it has 

nonetheless conducted a review of the entire docket in this matter. Upon that review, the 

Case 2:15-cv-00933-JJT Document 15 Filed 01/28/16 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

Court concludes that Judge Boyle’s recommendations are well taken and correctly apply 

the law throughout. The Court adopts the reasoning of the R&R in whole.

On July 21, 2015, the Supreme Court of Arizona denied review of Petitioner’s 

Petition for post-Conviction relief. (Doc. 12-3, Exh. X). Upon that denial, the R&R 

correctly concluded that Petitioner’s Motion in the instant matter is moot, and the Court 

will deny it as such.

Respondents have nonetheless requested a stay of the habeas matter, because the 

determination of Montgomery by the Supreme Court of the United States will impact this 

Court’s analysis of whether Petitioner’s habeas claims are time-barred, and whether they 

succeed or fail on their merits. The Court concludes, as Judge Boyle recommends, that 

the stay Respondents request is appropriate. If, in deciding Montgomery, the Supreme 

Court determines that its prior holding in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012)—

that the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison 

without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders—is retroactive, Petitioner’s claims 

in this habeas review may not be time-barred. Moreover, if the Supreme Court finds that 

Miller is retroactive, Petitioner’s first and third grounds for relief may or may not fail on 

the merits. For this reason, and because the Supreme Court will have answered the 

question of retroactivity by its summer recess, the Court will stay the matter.

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation in this matter 

(Doc. 14); 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Petitioner’s Motion to Stay 

Pending Exhaustion of State Court Remedies (Doc. 4);

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Respondents’ request for stay pending a 

decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 135 S. 

Ct. 1546 (Doc. 11);

///

///

///

Case 2:15-cv-00933-JJT Document 15 Filed 01/28/16 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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon the Supreme Court’s issuance of a 

decision in Montgomery, the parties shall file a notice of the decision with this Court, 

whereupon the Court shall lift the stay.

Dated this 28th day of January, 2016.

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-00933-JJT Document 15 Filed 01/28/16 Page 3 of 3