Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00188/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00188-1/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NOT FOR PUBLICATION 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 

Peter David Maassen, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et. al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-00188-PHX-SRB

ORDER 

 

 Petitioner Peter David Maassen filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on 

January 28, 2013. He raises four claims for relief. Petitioner claims that the Mesa Police 

Department violated his Fourth Amendment Rights by searching his home without 

probable cause and without a warrant for his arrest or a search warrant. Petitioner claims 

that his Sixth Amendment Rights were violated because the state was allowed to amend 

Count One of the Indictment at trial. Petitioner’s third claim is that his federal and state 

constitutional rights were violated because the police came onto his property without a 

search warrant or a warrant for his arrest and after entering onto his property did not 

announce their presence. Petitioner’s final claim is that his Fourth Amendment Rights 

were violated because the police used a trick to flush him out of his house and then 

entered and searched his house without a warrant and without his permission. 

Respondents filed their answer on May 10, 2013 requesting that the Petition be denied 

because the Arizona Court of Appeal’s decision denying Petitioner’s Fourth and Sixth 

Case 2:13-cv-00188-SRB Document 21 Filed 10/25/13 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

Amendment claims was not clearly contrary to nor an unreasonable application of federal 

law. Petitioner filed a reply in support of his habeas petition on June 6, 2013. 

 The Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation recommending that 

the Petition be denied on August 27, 2013. Petitioner filed timely written objections on 

September 17, 2013, and on that same date also filed a Motion to Stay Petitioners Petition 

of Habeas Corpus. 

 Rather than making specific objections to the findings and recommendations of 

the Magistrate Judge, Petitioner’s objections re-argue the arguments that he made to the 

Court of Appeals and in his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus that the Arizona Court of 

Appeals erred in its determination of his Fourth and Sixth Amendment claims. At several 

points in his objections Petitioner asserts that the Arizona Court of Appeals “profoundly 

misinterpreted facts as testified to at trial” and because of that misinterpretation of the 

facts the Arizona Court of Appeals resolution of his Fourth Amendment claims was 

contrary to or an “unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court 

precedent.” (Doc. 17, Pet’r’s Objection to Report and Recommendation (“Obj”) at 5,8) 

With respect to his Sixth Amendment claim, Petitioner also objects because the Arizona 

Court of Appeal’s resolution of his Sixth Amendment claim, which allowed the State to 

amend the indictment, was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly 

established federal law. 

 With respect to Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claims, the Magistrate Judge 

found that the Petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to litigate those claims in state 

court and, therefore, in accordance with the holding of the United States Supreme Court 

in Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494, 96 S.Ct. 3037 (1976), the Court should not 

reconsider Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claims. With respect to Petitioner’s Sixth 

Amendment claim, the Magistrate Judge noted that the Arizona Court of Appeals found 

that an amendment to an indictment which merely lowered the classification of the 

offense did not deprive the Petitioner of his Sixth Amendment right to notice and that 

Petitioner had not shown he was prejudiced by the amendment. The Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:13-cv-00188-SRB Document 21 Filed 10/25/13 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

concluded that the Arizona Court of Appeal’s decision was not clearly contrary to federal 

law because the Court of Appeals applied the correct standard to Petitioner’s claim. The 

Magistrate Judge also concluded that the Court of Appeal’s decision was not an 

unreasonable application of the United States Supreme Court precedent on the Sixth 

Amendment and recommended denial of habeas relief on the Sixth Amendment claim. 

Petitioner argues that he was prejudiced stating “the prejudice was so bad that the 

deficiencies made my trial so egregiously unfair as amount to deprivation of my right to 

due process,” (Obj at 11) but has not explained how he was so prejudiced. 

 Also pending is Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Petitioners Petition of Habeas Corpus 

to which Respondents filed an opposition and to which Petitioner replied. The motion 

was admittedly prompted by the Magistrate Judge’s discussion in his Report and 

Recommendation of the pendency of Petitioner’s Post-Conviction Relief Petition in state 

court. The Magistrate Judge noted that the habeas petition is timely because it raised 

claims decided on his direct appeal and, therefore, already exhausted in state court. The 

Magistrate Judge noted that Petitioner had not asked to stay his Petition pending the 

resolution of any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel which he may be exhausting 

in his state Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. Once those claims are exhausted the 

Magistrate Judge noted that the Petitioner would be required to file a second or 

successive habeas petition if he wished to bring his ineffective assistance of counsel 

claims in a federal habeas petition. 

 The Court will deny the Request for Stay. As noted in the Response in Opposition 

to the Motion to Stay, a stay is only appropriate in certain limited circumstances where a 

federal habeas petition includes exhausted and unexhausted claims. The habeas petition 

does not include any unexhausted claims and, therefore, a stay is not appropriate in this 

case. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 275 (2005). 

 The Court finds itself in agreement with the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge in this case and further finds that the Objections must be overruled 

because they fail to establish error in the analysis of the facts and law by the Magistrate 

Case 2:13-cv-00188-SRB Document 21 Filed 10/25/13 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

Judge and simply reargue Petitioner’s claim that the Arizona Court of Appeals erred. 

 IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court. (Doc. 14) 

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

Petition of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 18) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus. (Doc. 1) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability because 

Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 25th day of October, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-00188-SRB Document 21 Filed 10/25/13 Page 4 of 4