Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02140/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02140-1/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 

Mark Anthony Escobar, Jr., 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

CV-14-02140-TUC-DCB (BPV) 

ORDER 

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco on June 25, 

2014, pursuant to Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, District of 

Arizona Rule (Civil) 72.1(a). On June 8, 2016, Magistrate Judge Velasco issued a Report 

and Recommendation (R&R). (Doc. 15). He recommends that the District Court dismiss 

the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus as procedurally defaulted. The Court accepts 

and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R&R as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of 

this Court and denies the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 The duties of the district court in connection with a R&R by a Magistrate Judge 

are set forth in Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). 

The district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

Case 4:14-cv-02140-DCB Document 16 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. 

§636(b)(1). When the parties object to an R&R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall 

make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is 

made.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (quoting 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)). 

When no objections are filed, the district court does not need to review the R&R de novo. 

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 

328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court makes a de novo determination as to 

those portions of the R&R to which there are objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A 

judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or 

specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made.") To the 

extent that no objection has been made, arguments to the contrary have been 

waived. McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980) (failure to object to 

Magistrate's report waives right to do so on appeal); see also, Advisory Committee Notes 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 

(9th Cir. 1974) (when no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that 

there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation).

 The parties were sent copies of the R&R and instructed that they had 14 days to 

file written objections. 28 U.S.C. §636(b), see also, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 

72 (party objecting to the recommended disposition has fourteen (14) days to file 

specific, written objections). To date, no objections have been filed. 

///// 

Case 4:14-cv-02140-DCB Document 16 Filed 08/01/16 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 

 The Honorable Bernardo P. Velasco, United States Magistrate Judge, considered 

the correct standard for exhaustion and procedural default for a federal habeas petition. 

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), a writ of 

habeas corpus cannot be granted unless it appears that the petitioner has exhausted all 

available state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. §2254(b)(1); see also Coleman v. Thompson, 

501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). Petitioner failed to 

present to the Arizona Court of Appeals the claims he raises in his federal Petition and 

therefore has failed to exhaust his state court remedies. See Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 

27, 29 (2004) (“To provide the State with the necessary ‘opportunity,’ the prisoner must 

‘fairly present’ his claim in each appropriate state court . . . thereby alerting that court to 

the federal nature of the claim.”). Furthermore, Petitioner would no longer have a remedy 

if he returned to the Arizona courts to present the claims he raises here. Rule 32.2(a)(3) of 

the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a defendant is precluded from 

post-conviction relief on any ground that was waived in any previous collateral 

proceeding. Petitioner waived appellate review of his ineffective assistance of counsel 

claim raised in his first Post-Conviction Relief Petition by withdrawing that Petition in 

2014 at the hearing on remand from the appellate court. Although he also raised the claim 

in his Third PCR Petition filed in 2013, he did not request appellate court review of the 

///// 

///// 

Case 4:14-cv-02140-DCB Document 16 Filed 08/01/16 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

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 

trial court’s denial of his Third PCR Petition and is now barred from doing so. See

Ariz.R.Crim.P. 32.4(a); see also Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 987 (9th Cir. 2002) (a 

state post-conviction action is futile when it is time-barred). Therefore, any additional 

petitions would be subject to summary dismissal. See State v. Rosario, 195 Ariz. 264, 

266, 987 P.2d 226, 228 (App. 1999); State v. Jones, 182 Ariz. 432, 897 P.2d 734 (App. 

1995); Moreno v. Gonzalez, 192 Ariz. 131, 135, 962 P.2d 205, 209 (1998) (timeliness is a 

separate inquiry from preclusion). (R&R) (Doc. 15) at 8-9.) 

 Petitioner has not argued or otherwise shown cause or prejudice to overcome the 

procedural default in this case. Furthermore, Petitioner has not argued or otherwise 

shown that a fundamental miscarriage of justice has occurred which would require this 

Court to address his claims on the merits. Id. at 9. 

 Here, there are no objections and review has, therefore, been waived, but the 

Court nevertheless reviews at a minimum, de novo, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of 

law. Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Turner v. Duncan, 

158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998) (conclusions of law by a magistrate judge reviewed de 

novo); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to object standing 

alone will not ordinarily waive question of law, but is a factor in considering the 

propriety of finding waiver)). 

 The Court finds the R&R to be thorough and well-reasoned, without any clear 

error in law or fact. See United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617-618 (9th Cir. 1989) 

(citing 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A) as providing for district court to reconsider matters 

delegated to magistrate judge when there is clear error or recommendation is contrary to 

Case 4:14-cv-02140-DCB Document 16 Filed 08/01/16 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 

law). The Magistrate Judge properly applied the law of exhaustion and procedural 

default. The Court accepts and adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court, pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is adopted as 

the opinion of the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition (Doc. 1) is dismissed, and the 

Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 

IT IS FUTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a 

certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 

procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

 Dated this 27th day of July, 2016. 

Honorable David C. Bury

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-02140-DCB Document 16 Filed 08/01/16 Page 5 of 5