Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-01530/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-01530-1/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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

Stanley Hall,

Petitioner,

v. 

David Shinn, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-19-01530-PHX-SRB

ORDER 

Petitioner, Stanley Hall filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on February 28, 

2019. He raised four grounds for relief: 1) violations of his Sixth and Fourteenth 

Amendment rights as a result of pretrial and trial errors, 2) violations of his Fourth and 

Fifth Amendment rights when jail officials took $572 from his inmate account and when 

he was unlawfully arrested and extradited, 3) violations of his Eighth Amendment rights 

involving false grand jury testimony, denial of his right to impeach witnesses and the 

setting of excessive bail, and 4) violations of his Fifth Amendment rights by the allowance 

of improper impeachment of his trial testimony, by forcing him to testify at trial, by 

collusion between the trial court and the prosecutor and by precluding evidence of the 

violent nature of the apartment complex where he lived at the time of the crime.

The Respondents filed a Limited Answer asserting that all of Petitioner’s claims 

were procedurally defaulted without excuse. Petitioner filed a Reply. On March 16, 2020, 

the Magistrate Judge issued her Report and Recommendation finding that Petitioner’s 

claims were procedurally defaulted without excuse and recommending that his habeas 

Case 2:19-cv-01530-SRB Document 32 Filed 04/21/20 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

petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner filed timely written objections 

entitled Response to Report and Recommendation and the Respondents filed a Response 

to the objections.

Petitioner’s nine-page Response to the Report and Recommendation complains of 

many perceived errors and injustices allegedly committed by the Court in this case and in 

a federal civil rights case that he also filed. But the Response never addresses the Report 

and Recommendation or any errors therein. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, all of

Petitioner’s habeas claims were procedurally defaulted because each claim related to 

alleged pre-trial and trial errors that were never raised in Petitioner’s direct appeal of his 

conviction in state court. The Magistrate Judge also explained why Petitioner’s habeas 

filings failed to establish cause for his procedural default or a miscarriage of justice. 

Petitioner’s Response also fails to address this conclusion. After detailing the many 

perceived errors and injustices Petitioner concludes his Response by stating that “the Court 

must agree that the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations are unsound without merit 

and must be disregarded as unfounded and fundamentally misleading...” The Court does 

not agree. Rather after review of the habeas record, the Court agrees with the Magistrate 

Judge that Petitioner’s habeas claims are procedurally defaulted without excuse and that 

the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

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. 29)

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

Corpus and dismissing it with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability because 

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

not find the procedural ruling debatable.

. . .

Case 2:19-cv-01530-SRB Document 32 Filed 04/21/20 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 directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.

Dated this 21st day of April, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-01530-SRB Document 32 Filed 04/21/20 Page 3 of 3