Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00395/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00395-1/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 

Stanley Wade Starr, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Antonio Baca, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-11-00395-TUC-JGZ (JR)

ORDER 

 On August 23, 2013, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau issued a Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 13) in which she recommended dismissing Petitioner’s Petition 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody. (Doc. 

1.) The R&R provided that any party could file written objections within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with a copy of the R&R. On August 29, 2013, Respondents filed 

a “Limited Objection to Report and Recommendation” (Doc. 14) requesting that the 

Court adopt all but one paragraph of the R&R. (Doc. 14, p. 1.) Respondents’ objection 

states that “[a]lthough the Magistrate Judge correctly analyzes Petitioner’s claims, the 

first paragraph on page 6 lists claims that do not appear in his Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus.” (Id.) Respondents’ limited objection requests that this Court correct page six 

and thereafter dismiss the Petition with prejudice. 

After an independent review of the record, the Court adopts the R&R, except as 

indicated in this Order. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 4:11-cv-00395-JGZ Document 15 Filed 11/04/13 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 

636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for clear error the unobjected-to 

portions of the R&R. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); 

see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). 

PROCEDURAL AND FACTURAL BACKGROUND 

 Petitioner’s Petition raises six claims for relief and contains one subheading 

entitled “5.2 Ineffective Assistance of Counsel” that itself lists six allegations of 

ineffectiveness.1

 (Doc. 1.) In Claim One, Petitioner argues that the prosecutor violated 

his First Amendment rights to free speech and to peaceably assemble by selectively 

prosecuting him due to his affiliation with the “constitutionalists.” His claim also alleges 

grand jury manipulation due to this same alleged “constitutionalist” bias. Claim Two 

alleges that the prosecutor violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable 

searches and seizures by filing an insufficient indictment without probable cause because 

the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence regarding “Notices of Invalid Liens.” In 

Claim Three, Petitioner argues that the state violated his Fifth Amendment Double 

Jeopardy rights by pursuing both criminal and civil sanctions against him. Claim Four 

alleges that the Prosecutor violated Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy, fair, 

and public trial by denying him an informed jury and by failing to disclose exculpatory 

evidence.2

 In Claim Five, Petitioner argues that the trial court violated his Eighth 

Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by imposing consecutive 

sentences. Claim Six re-alleges Petitioner’s claims of judicial and prosecutorial 

misconduct as violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal 

protection. In particular, Petitioner raises his denial of a jury trial, prosecutorial 

misconduct, and an alleged judicial conflict of interest and prejudice. Finally, 

Petitioner’s subheading claim “5.2 Ineffective Assistance of Counsel” lists: (a) failure to 

investigate Notice of Invalid Lien; (b) failure to question indictment; (c) failure to object 

 

1

 Paragraph one on page six, lines 1-12, of the R&R incorrectly lists Petitioner’s 

claims and is replaced by the findings of this Order. 

2

 Petitioner fails to fully articulate this argument. Rather, he puts his argument in in parentheticals, i.e., (false document). 

Case 4:11-cv-00395-JGZ Document 15 Filed 11/04/13 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 

to misleading evidence; (d) failure to address conspiracy charge; (e) failure to call any 

witnesses on Petitioner’s behalf; (f) failure to object to excessive sentencing; and (g) 

failure of appellate counsel to appeal appealable issues. 

DISCUSSION 

The R&R addressed Petitioner’s six claims as well as his “5.2 Ineffective 

Assistance of Counsel” allegations, and no objections to the R&R’s legal findings were 

filed. Reviewing for clear error, this Court finds none. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED as 

the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court, with the modifications discussed 

in this Order; 

2. Petitioner’s Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a 

Person in State Custody (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and 

3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in this matter, and close its file. 

 Dated this 4th day of November, 2013. 

Case 4:11-cv-00395-JGZ Document 15 Filed 11/04/13 Page 3 of 3