Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00119/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00119-1/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 

Corey Lamont Holleman, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-00119-TUC-JGZ

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United 

States Magistrate Jacqueline Rateau that recommends denying Petitioner’s habeas 

petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 19.) As thoroughly explained by 

Magistrate Judge Rateau, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 1) is a successive 

petition, which does not allege either a new rule of constitutional law or newly 

discovered facts that establish actual innocence. No objection to the Report and 

Recommendation was filed by Petitioner.1

 

 The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Rateau’s 

 

1

 The Court notes that Petitioner filed a surreply on the same day that the Magistrate Judge filed her Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 20.) In his surreply, Petitioner contends that he was not provided with the May 15, 2013 order dismissing his first petition with prejudice. Petitioner further contends that the first petition was dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies, and was “without prejudice.” The Court has reviewed the surreply, as well as the 2013 Order dismissing Defendant’s previous petition, and concludes that the Court dismissed the petition with prejudice. (See docs. 18 

and 22 in case No. 4:10-CV-00433-JGZ, Holleman v. Hartsuck, et al.) Accordingly, the arguments contained in Petitioner’s surreply do not undermine the conclusion reached by the Magistrate Judge in the present Report and Recommendation. 

Case 4:15-cv-00119-JGZ Document 21 Filed 02/02/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

recommendations are not clearly erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72; 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). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is accepted and adopted; 

2. Petitioner’s §2254 Petition (Doc. 1) is denied and this case is dismissed 

with prejudice; 

3. A Certificate of Appealability is denied and shall not issue; and 

4. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file 

in this matter. 

 Dated this 2nd day of February, 2016. 

Case 4:15-cv-00119-JGZ Document 21 Filed 02/02/16 Page 2 of 2