Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00755/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00755-1/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 

Carmen Sonia Ramirez Martinez,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan; et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-00755-PHX-NVW (JZB)

ORDER 

and 

DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY AND IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle (Doc. 43) regarding petitioner’s Amended Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 9). The R&R 

recommends that the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate 

Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. 

(R&R at 11 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. 

On June 27, 2016, Petitioner filed a Motion to Supplement Pleading to Preserve a 

Claim of Error to Exclude Evidence (Doc. 45). The Court ordered denying the Motion to 

Supplement but advised Petitioner the Court will consider it as part of an objection to the 

Report and Recommendation (Doc. 46). On July 18, 2016, the Petitioner filed a Motion 

for Relief form Order or Judgment (Doc. 47), and the Court treats this motion as a timely 

objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has considered the objections 

and reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the court must make a de novo determination of those 

Case 2:15-cv-00755-NVW Document 48 Filed 07/20/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The 

Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determinations, accepts the recommended 

decision within the meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner’s 

objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, 

or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the 

magistrate”). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge (Doc.43) is accepted. 

Having considered the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability from the order 

denying Petitioner’s Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, a Certificate of 

Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because 

dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would 

not find the ruling debatable, and because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing 

of the denial of a constitutional right. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying 

and dismissing Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 9) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

Dated this 19th day of July, 2016. 

Neil V. Wake

Senior United States District 

Judge

Case 2:15-cv-00755-NVW Document 48 Filed 07/20/16 Page 2 of 2