Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_22-cv-08014/USCOURTS-azd-3_22-cv-08014-1/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

Philip John Martin,

Petitioner,

v. 

Attorney General of the State of Arizona,

Respondent.

No. CV-22-08014-PCT-JJT (MTM)

ORDER 

At issue is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29, “R&R”) entered by United 

States Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey recommending that the Court deny and 

dismiss with prejudice the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(Doc. 1). Petitioner filed Objections (Doc. 30) which the Court deems as timely filed, and 

Respondents thereafter timely filed a Response to those Objections (Doc. 31.) 

Petitioner raised two grounds for habeas review1in his Petition: 1) what Judge 

Morrissey has generously construed as a freestanding claim of actual innocence; and 2) the 

allegation that “[p]olice reports contain lies and tainted evidence.” Judge Morrissey ably 

set forth his analysis for both grounds which the Court will not recount here except in 

summary. As to Ground One, Judge Morrissey correctly stated that even if a freestanding 

claim of actual innocence is cognizable in this proceeding—an open question not yet 

answered by the Supreme Court or the Ninth Circuit—Petitioner has failed to meet the 

1

In his Objections to the R&R, Petitioner arguably attempts for the first time to introduce 

a third ground: ineffective assistance of trial counsel. (Doc. 30, passim.) To the extent 

Petitioner attempts to offer it as a ground for review, the Court will not consider this newly 

raised claim. See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621 (9th Cir. 2000).

Case 3:22-cv-08014-JJT Document 32 Filed 11/08/23 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

extremely high showing standard the Ninth Circuit has said it would require in Carriger v. 

Stewart, 132 F.3d 463, 476 (9th Cir. 1997). As Judge Morrissey concluded, Petitioner has 

not shown that he is probably innocent, as Carriger would require. 132 F.3d at 476.

As to Ground Two, the R&R correctly concludes that Petitioner’s allegation fails to 

state a violation of the Constitution, law or treaties of the United States—the only violation 

redressable by federal review pursuant to Section 2254. Petitioner therefore has not stated 

a cognizable habeas claim. 

The Court spent considerable time parsing through and trying to make sense of 

Petitioner’s 15-page Objections, which largely consist of discrete and unrelated paragraphsized bullet points making record and case citations, interspersed with selected trial 

transcript pages at times highlighted, in an attempt to fully understand the gravamen of 

those objections. After that review, the Court agrees with Respondents that Petitioner fails 

to state any actionable objections to the recommendations on his two previously stated 

grounds. Instead, Petitioner merely repeats the arguments he made in his briefs; he does 

not point to any specific finding made by Judge Morrissey, or reasoning supporting such 

finding, to ascribe or identify error. These are thus improper objections. See, e.g., Curtis v. 

Shinn, No. CV-19-04374-PHX-DGC, 2021 WL 4596465 at 7* (D. Ariz. October 6, 2021) 

(“. . . simply repeating arguments made in the petition is not a proper objection under Rule 

72.”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring specific written objections to the findings 

and recommendations). The Court cannot sustain such objections.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED overruling the Objections (Doc. 30) and 

adopting the R&R (Doc. 29) submitted by Judge Morrissey in this matter.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying and dismissing with prejudice the Petition 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1).

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

Case 3:22-cv-08014-JJT Document 32 Filed 11/08/23 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 denying a Certificate of Appealability in this mater, 

as the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.

Dated this 8th day of November, 2023.

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge

Case 3:22-cv-08014-JJT Document 32 Filed 11/08/23 Page 3 of 3