Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00131/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00131-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Randy Scott Bailey, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 04-0131-PHX-MHM (MS)

ORDER

Petitioner proceeding pro se has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his criminal convictions on six counts of armed robbery following

a trial in the Superior Court, Maricopa County, State of Arizona. The matter was referred to

United States Magistrate Judge Morton Sitver who has issued a Report and Recommendation

that recommends that the Petition should be denied. (Doc. 33). Petitioner filed two motions

for extensions of time in which to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc.

34 & 36). This Court granted both of Petitioner's motions. (Doc. 35 & 37). Petitioner has

not filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge even

though granted the additional time. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court must review the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations

de novo if objection is made but not otherwise. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)("[a] judge of the court shall

Case 2:04-cv-00131-MHM Document 38 Filed 06/13/06 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

27

28 - 2 -

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings

or recommendations to which objection is made"). 

DISCUSSION

The Court has considered the pleadings and documents of record in this case. The

Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommended rejection of Respondents' contention

that the holding in Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999), that, except in

habeas petitions in capital cases, claims of Arizona state prisoners are exhausted for purposes

of federal habeas once the Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled on them, appears to have been

overruled by the Supreme Court in Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004). In Castillo v.

McFadden, 399 F.3d 993, 998 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit reiterated the holding in

Swoopes. See, e.g., Skaggs v. Batros, 2006 WL 898160 (D.Ariz. 2006)(same). Regarding all

other issues, as neither party has filed objections, the Report and Recommendation is adopted

as the Order of the Court.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc.

33) as the Order of this Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1)

is denied and dismissed with prejudice.

DATED this 7th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00131-MHM Document 38 Filed 06/13/06 Page 2 of 2