Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08189/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08189-1/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

1

The Court notes that the Clerk of the Court mailed a copy of the Report

and Recommendation to the petitioner, who is out of custody, to the address noted

by the petitioner in his last change of address form (Doc. 16). Although there is no

indication in the record that this copy of the Report and Recommendation was not

received by the petitioner, the Court, in an abundance of caution, entered an order

(Doc. 21) that required the Clerk to mail another copy of the Report and

Recommendation to the petitioner at a different address that the petitioner had

placed on two motions for status (Docs. 18 and 19) that he had filed subsequent to

his last notice of change of address. That second copy of the Report and

Recommendation was returned as undeliverable and the Court has no other mailing

addresses for the petitioner.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Charles Henry Todd,

 Petitioner,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-13-08189-PCT-PGR (JZB)

 ORDER

 

 

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Boyle notwithstanding that no party has filed any objections to the Report and

Recommendation1

, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly

Case 3:13-cv-08189-PGR Document 23 Filed 06/29/15 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

determined that the petitioner’s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be denied (1) because the petitioner

procedurally defaulted on Grounds One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven (a),

Eight and Nine and has not established any cause, including his claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel, sufficient to excuse his procedural defaults and he has not

argued a fundamental miscarriage of justice, and (2) because the Arizona Court of

Appeals’ rejection of the petitioner’s “right to present a defense” claim underlying

Ground Seven (b), which was based on the preclusion of hearsay evidence, was not

contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court

precedent. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 20) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Amended Petition Under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 5)

is denied and is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability shall not issue

and leave to appeal in forma pauperis is denied because the dismissal of the

petitioner’s Amended Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of

reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable, and because the petitioner

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

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

accordingly.

DATED this 28th day of June, 2015.

Case 3:13-cv-08189-PGR Document 23 Filed 06/29/15 Page 2 of 2