Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00529/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00529-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Marcos Matus-Monroy, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Greg Fizer, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-0529-PHX-JWS (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE JOHN W. SEDWICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

BACKGROUND

Petitioner Marcos Matus-Monroy has filed a pro se Amended Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. #4. On September 26, 2003, pursuant

to a plea agreement, Petitioner pleaded guilty in Maricopa County Superior Court to two

counts of kidnaping, the first a class four felony and the second a class two felony under

Arizona law. Doc. #12, Exh. C. On October 29, 2003, Petitioner was sentenced to six years

in prison on the first count and 10.5 years on the second count, the terms to run concurrently.

Doc. #12, Exh. D. 

Petitioner filed a timely Notice of Post-Conviction Relief and request for appointment

of counsel in the state trial court. Doc. #12, Exh. E. Petitioner's counsel subsequently filed

a Notice of Completion of Post-Conviction Review in which counsel stated he was unable

to find any claims for relief to raise in post-conviction relief proceedings. Doc. #12, Exh. F.

Case 2:06-cv-00529-JWS Document 13 Filed 04/24/07 Page 1 of 6
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 -

Petitioner then filed a Pro-Per Petition for Post-Conviction Relief on July 1, 2004. Doc. #12,

Exh. G. The trial court denied the petition in a minute entry filed on October 1, 2004. Doc.

#12, Exh. H. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review in the Arizona Court of Appeals on

December 17, 2004, which was denied on August 16, 2005. Doc. #12, Exh. I, J. Petitioner

then filed a Petition for Review in the Arizona Supreme Court on August 29, 2005, which

the Court denied on January 23, 2006. Doc. #12, Exh. K, L.

On May 1, 2006, Petitioner filed his amended habeas petition in this court. Petitioner

alleges two grounds for relief: (1) that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel

by falsely telling Petitioner that the prosecution had witnesses to testify against him and

pressuring him to sign the plea agreement; and (2) that his right to equal protection was

violated when the sentence imposed against him was more severe than the sentence imposed

against his co-defendants. Respondents filed an Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus on September 1, 2006. Doc. #12. Petitioner has not filed a reply, despite being

instructed in the screening order that he could do so. Doc. #5 at 3. 

DISCUSSION

Respondents contend in their answer that Petitioner has procedurally defaulted on his

two grounds for relief by failing to exhaust his state court remedies. Respondents argue that

Petitioner failed to fairly present his claims to the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Arizona

Supreme Court. Having failed to file a reply, Petitioner has presented nothing to refute

Respondents' procedural default defense. 

A. Procedural Default 

A state prisoner must exhaust his remedies in state court before petitioning for a writ

of habeas corpus in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1) & (c); Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S.

364, 365-66 (1995); McQueary v. Blodgett, 924 F.2d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 1991). To properly

exhaust state remedies, a petitioner must fairly present his claims to the state's highest court

in a procedurally appropriate manner. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 848 (1999). In

Arizona, a petitioner must fairly present his claims to the Arizona Court of Appeals by

properly pursuing them through the state’s direct appeal process or through appropriate postCase 2:06-cv-00529-JWS Document 13 Filed 04/24/07 Page 2 of 6
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

- 3 -

conviction relief. Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999); Roettgen v.

Copeland, 33 F.3d 36, 38 (9th Cir. 1994). 

A claim has been fairly presented if the petitioner has described both the operative

facts and the federal legal theory on which the claim is based. Bland v. Cal. Dep't of

Corrections, 20 F.3d 1469, 1472-73 (9th Cir.1994), overruled on other grounds by Schell v.

Witek, 218 F.3d 1017, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Tamalini v. Stewart, 249 F.3d 895,

898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). "Our rule is that a state prisoner has not 'fairly presented' (and thus

exhausted) his federal claims in state court unless he specifically indicated to that court that

those claims were based on federal law." Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668 (9th Cir.

2000), amended on other grounds, 247 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2001). "If a petitioner fails to alert

the state court to the fact that he is raising a federal constitutional claim, his federal claim is

unexhausted regardless of its similarity to the issues raised in state court." Johnson v. Zenon,

88 F.3d 828, 830 (9th Cir. 1996).

If a petition contains claims that were never fairly presented in state court, the federal

court must determine whether state remedies remain available to the petitioner. See Rose v.

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 519-20 (1982); Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 268-270 (1989)

(O'Connor, J., concurring). If remedies are still available in state court, the federal court may

dismiss the petition without prejudice pending the exhaustion of state remedies. Id.

However, if the court finds that the petitioner would have no state remedy were he to return

to the state court, then his claims are considered procedurally defaulted. Teague v. Lane, 489

U.S. 288, 298-99 (1989); see also Sandgathe v. Maass, 314 F.3d 371, 376 (9th Cir. 2002) (a

defendant's claim is procedurally defaulted when it is clear that the state court would hold

the claim procedurally barred). The federal court will not consider these claims unless the

petitioner can demonstrate that a miscarriage of justice would result, or establish cause for

his noncompliance and actual prejudice. See Dretke v. Haley, 124 S.Ct. 1847, 1851-52

(2004); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 321 (1995); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722,

750-51 (1991); Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 495-96 (1986).

Case 2:06-cv-00529-JWS Document 13 Filed 04/24/07 Page 3 of 6
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

- 4 -

Regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Respondents argue that

although Petitioner properly raised it as a federal constitutional claims in his petition for postconviction relief to the state trial court, he failed to fairly present it as a federal claim in the

Arizona Court of Appeals or the Arizona Supreme Court. A review of Petitioner's Petition

for Review to the Arizona Court of Appeals shows that even though Petitioner alleged poor

representation by his attorney, he failed to allege a federal constitutional claim. Doc. #12,

Exh. I. Petitioner never referred to the Sixth Amendment or any cases that might indicate

he was making a federal constitutional claim. Id. 

Similarly, in his Petition for Review to the Arizona Supreme Court, Petitioner fails

to allege ineffective assistance under the Sixth Amendment. Doc. #12, Exh. K. He again

makes allegation of inadequate representation by his lawyer but he fails to cite any cases or

otherwise indicate that he is making a federal constitutional claim. In a summary paragraph

at the end of his petition, Petitioner requests relief under the "Constitution of America" and

specific provisions of the Arizona Constitution. However, the "mere mention of the federal

Constitution as a whole, without specifying an applicable provision, or an underlying federal

legal theory, does not suffice to exhaust the federal claim." Fields v. Waddington, 401 F.3d

1018, 1021 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, Petitioner failed to fairly present his Sixth Amendment

ineffective assistance of counsel claim to the state court. 

Regarding his second claim, that receiving a more severe sentence than his codefendants violated the Equal Protection Clause, Petitioner failed to make such a claim in his

Petition for Review to the Arizona Court of Appeals or the Arizona Supreme Court. Doc.

#12, Exh. I, K. In the petition to the Arizona Court of Appeals, Petitioner said nothing about

the lesser prison sentences received by his co-defendants. Doc. #12, Exh. I. In the petition

to the Arizona Supreme Court, one line contains the assertion that his co-defendants were

given a much lesser sentence. Doc. #12, Exh. K at 5. He made no allegation, however, that

this disparity violated the Equal Protection Clause. Id. Although Petitioner included the

equal protection claim in his petition for post-conviction relief to the state trial court, that is

Case 2:06-cv-00529-JWS Document 13 Filed 04/24/07 Page 4 of 6
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

1

 The time has passed to seek post-conviction relief in state court under Rule 32.4(a)

of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and Petitioner has not shown that any of the

exceptions to the time limits under Rule 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g) or (h) apply to him.

- 5 -

not sufficient to exhaust the claim for federal habeas review. See Swoopes, 196 F.3d 1008,

1010 (9th Cir. 1999) 

By failing to fairly present his claims for relief in the state court, Petitioner has failed

to exhaust his state court remedies. Moreover, Petitioner would no longer have a remedy if

he returned to the state court.1

 As a result, his claims are procedurally defaulted.

Additionally, Petitioner has not alleged cause for the default and actual prejudice, nor has he

shown a miscarriage of justice to overcome the procedural default. The court will therefore

recommend that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS RECOMMENDED:

That the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(Doc. #4) be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. The

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which to file a

response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report

and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by

the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the

findings of fact in an order of judgement entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

DATED this 24rd day of April, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00529-JWS Document 13 Filed 04/24/07 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

Case 2:06-cv-00529-JWS Document 13 Filed 04/24/07 Page 6 of 6