Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02142/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02142-0/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

Ronald Maldonado Ruelas, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2142-PHX-MHM (CRP)

ORDER

Petitioner Ronald Maldonado Ruelas ("Petitioner") filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus ("Petition") under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt.#1). The matter was referred to Magistrate

Judge Charles R. Pyle who has issued a Report and Recommendation that recommends that

the Petition be denied. (Dkt.#12). Petitioner has not filed any objection to the Report and

Recommendation; however, Respondent objects not to the result, but to Magistrate Judge

Pyle's recommendation that Petitioner's claim be deemed adequately presented in state court

and not denied for lack of exhaustion. (Dkt.#14). 

I. Standard of Review

The district court must review the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations

de novo if objection is made but not otherwise. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)("[a] judge of the court shall

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings

or recommendations to which objection is made"). "Failure to object to a magistrate judge's

Case 2:04-cv-02142-MHM-CRP Document 15 Filed 05/24/07 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

recommendation waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact." Jones v. Wood, 207

F.3d 557, 562 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). 

II. Discussion

Because of the absence of any objection from Petitioner as to Magistrate Judge's

recommendation that Petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel be denied, the

Court will limit is inquiry, upon de novo review, as to whether Petitioner's ineffective

assistance of claim presented in his federal petition was properly exhausted in the Arizona

state courts before being raised in this Court. 

As a general matter, prior to obtaining federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

a petitioner "must properly exhaust his state remedies by fairly presenting his federal claims

in the state courts and thereby giving those courts an opportunity to act on his claim."

Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003). A petitioner's brief to the state

appellate courts must apprise that the petitioner is making a claim under the United States

Constitution and describe "both the operative facts and the federal legal theory on which his

claim is based so that the state courts [could] have a 'fair opportunity' to apply controlling

legal principles to the facts bearing upon his constitutional claim." Castillo v. McFadden, 399

F.3d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted). The claims raised by a petition in

state court must be characterized "specifically as federal claims." Id. (quoting Lyons v.

Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 670 (2000) (emphasis original). To satisfy the exhaustion

requirement, the petitioner "must have either referenced specific provision of the federal

constitution or cited to federal or state cases involving the legal standard for a federal

constitution violation." Id. However, "general appeals to broad constitutional principles, such

as due process, equal protection, and the right to a fair trial" do not establish exhaustion.

Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir. 1999). "Nor is it enough to raise a state claim

that is analogous or closely similar to federal claim." Castillo, 399 F.3d at 999.

In applying this authority to this case, it is important to first review the language and

claims asserted by Petitioner in the state court proceedings. In both the petition for postCase 2:04-cv-02142-MHM-CRP Document 15 Filed 05/24/07 Page 2 of 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

1

Nearly identical language also appears in Petitioner's petition for review before the

Arizona Supreme Court. (Id., Exhibit CC). 

- 3 -

conviction relief and the petition for review by the Arizona Court of Appeals, Petitioner

articulated his "Basis for Requested Relief" as follows in pertinent part:

Pursuant to Rule 32, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, the conviction in

this matter was in violation of the Constitution of the United States and of the

State of Arizona because Mr. Ruelas was denied effective assistance of counsel

on direct appeal pursuant to the United States and Arizona Constitutions. 

The United States Supreme Court has stated an attorney's assistance must be

"within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases."

McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 90 S.Ct. 1441 (1970). 

(Respondent's Answer, Dkt.#10, Exhibits W and Z).

Moreover, in the "Analysis" section in both briefs presented to the Arizona Court of

Appeals, the Petitioner, with respect to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, asserted

in pertinent part:

The burden of proof is on the defendant to show ineffective assistance of

counsel by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Prince, 142 Ariz. 256,

260, 689 P.2d 515, 519 (1994). Following Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.

668, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984), the Arizona Supreme Court modified the test

necessary to establish ineffective assistance of counsel in Arizona and set forth

a two-prong test.

(Id.).1

The Respondent asserts that the above language and references to certain federal and

state authority is not sufficient to identify the assertion of a federal claim before the Arizona

courts. The Respondent contends that the Petitioner's broad reference to the United States

Constitution is overly vague. Moreover, the Respondent contends that Petitioner's citation to

the federal authority of Strickland was cited only in the context of Petitioner's discussion for

the Arizona test for ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, in opposition to the Magistrate

Judge's reliance upon the fact that Petitioner cited both the seminal federal case of Strickland

in the text of his brief along with Arizona authority which has adopted the Strickland test for

determining the merits of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the Respondent asserts

that such citation is irrelevant because "the citation [of such state cases] must be accompanied

Case 2:04-cv-02142-MHM-CRP Document 15 Filed 05/24/07 Page 3 of 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 - 4 -

by some clear indication that the case involves federal issues." Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896,

912 (9th Cir. 2004) (Respondent Objection, Dkt.#14, p.4). 

In reviewing the arguments advanced by the Respondent, the Court finds that the

Petitioner did sufficiently exhaust his federal Sixth Amendment claim based upon ineffective

assistance of counsel before the Arizona state courts. First, as a general matter, unlike the

petitioner in Casey, the Petitioner in the instance case did make unequivocally clear in his

petition to the state appellate courts that he was asserting a federal claim. For example, in

Casey, the petitioner referenced only state cases and did not use the term "federal" or

"Confrontation Clause;" rather the closest the petitioner came to asserting any federal claim

was his assertion of "constitutional error." Id. at 911. In the instant case; however, the

Petitioner did expressly reference that his claim was federal in nature. For instance, as noted

above, the Petitioner stated that the conviction ... was in violation of the Constitution of the

United States ... because Mr. Ruelas was denied effective assistance of counsel on direct

appeal pursuant to the United States ... Constitution[]." As such, out of the gate, Petitioner

made clear that his claims were federal in nature. Moreover, unlike situation in Casey, where

the petitioner cited only state law cases dealing with both state and federal issues, Id. at 912

n.13, the Petitioner in the instant case expressly cited federal authority, Strickland, addressing

the standard to be used in evaluating Sixth Amendment claims based upon ineffective

assistance of counsel. Although the Respondent contends that the Strickland case was cited

only in the context of a state law discussion, in light of the fact that Petitioner made clear at

the outset of his Petitioner the federal nature of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the

Court finds that this citation to such federal authority instructive in asserting a federal claim

in the state proceedings. Finally, even in looking only to the state cases cited by the

Petitioner, they sufficiently set forth the assertion of a federal claim before the state courts.

See Castillo supra (petitioner "must have either referenced specific provision of the federal

constitution or cited to federal or state cases involving the legal standard for a federal

constitution violation."). For example, the citation by Petitioner to the Arizona Supreme

Case 2:04-cv-02142-MHM-CRP Document 15 Filed 05/24/07 Page 4 of 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 - 5 -

Court's decision in State v. Nash 143 Ariz. 392, 694 P.2d 222 (Ariz. 1985) is especially

instructive in light of the fact that in that case the Arizona Supreme Court expressly stated that

both the first and second prong of the federal test set forth in Strickland were adopted and

used by the Arizona courts. Id. at 397. Respondent contends that although the cases cited by

Petitioner to the Arizona court adopt the Strickland standard, such reference in and of itself

is not sufficient for exhaustion purposes because these cases deal with both federal and state

issues and thus the Petitioner was required to provide a "clear indication that the case involves

federal issues." Casey, 386 F.3d at 912. Again, this Court does not agree with the

Respondent's argument. Keeping in mind that the Petitioner asserted only one claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel before the state courts, the Petitioner's citation to the Nash

case, which expressly adopted the federal test in Strickland for Arizona state review is clearly

informative to the determination of whether Petitioner asserted a federal claim. Moreover,

not only did Petitioner cite a state law case expressly adopting the federal test, he also cited

the seminal federal case as well and identified at the outset of his petition before the state

appellate courts that he was asserting his ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the

scope of the United States Constitution. As such, the Court finds, upon de novo review of the

Magistrate Judge's recommendation, that the Petitioner did sufficiently exhaust his federal

claim in the state courts before asserting it in the instant Petition. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation in its entirety as the Order of the Court. (Dkt.#12).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent's Objection to the Report and

Recommendation is overruled. (Dkt.#14). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied

and dismissed with prejudice. (Dkt.#1). 

DATED this 22nd day of May, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02142-MHM-CRP Document 15 Filed 05/24/07 Page 5 of 5