Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02944/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02944-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

TERRY LEE LACY,

PETITIONER, 

v. 

DARLA ELLIOT, et al.,

RESPONDENTS. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-2944-PHX-SMM (VAM)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND 

ORDER

Petitioner has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

[Doc. No. 1]. Petitioner has also filed a Motion for Extension of Time [Doc. No. 10] and a

Motion for Injunction [Doc. No. 11]. On October 25, 2005, this matter was referred to

Magistrate Judge Virginia A. Mathis [Doc. No. 3]. On February 1, 2006, Magistrate Judge

Mathis filed a Report and Recommendation, advising this Court that Petitioner's Motion for

Extension of Time and Motion for Injunction should be denied. On February 13, 2006,

Petitioner filed a Reply to the Attorney Genera's [sic] Report and Recommendation [Doc. No.

14] which this Court construes as Objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v.

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). The Court must review the legal analysis in the

Report and Recommendation de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court must review

the factual analysis in the Report and Recommendation de novo for those facts to which

Case 2:05-cv-02944-SMM Document 16 Filed 03/30/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Objections are filed and for clear error for those facts to which no Objections are filed. See id.;

see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998) (failure to file objections relieves

the district court of conducting de novo review of the magistrate’s factual findings).

DISCUSSION

Petitioner objects to Magistrate Judge Mathis's Report and Recommendation in which

Judge Mathis found that Petitioner was improperly attempting to assert claims that are not

cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding. Judge Mathis found that in both his Motion for

Extension of Time and Motion for Injunction, Petitioner alleged that various prison officials

were obstructing his access to this Court by preventing him from making photocopies and

performing legal research. Judge Mathis concluded that under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), Petitioner

may only raise claims that challenge the validity of his conviction and/or sentence. 

In his Objections, Petitioner restates the same allegations regarding the conduct of the

prison officials, namely that Respondents are using improper tactics to delay or impede his

access to this Court in violation of his due process rights by preventing him from making copies

and performing research. Judge Mathis, however, correctly found that under 28 U.S.C. §

2254(a), Petitioner may only raise claims that challenge the validity of his conviction and/or

sentence. Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time [Doc. No. 10] and a Motion

for Injunction [Doc. No. 11] are denied. 

CONCLUSION

After review of the legal conclusions of the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Mathis, and the objections made by Petitioner thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and

adopts Magistrate Judge Mathis's Report and Recommendation. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Virginia A. Mathis [Doc. No. 13].

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time [Doc. No.

10] and a Motion for Injunction [Doc. No. 11] are DENIED. 

Case 2:05-cv-02944-SMM Document 16 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

DATED this 29th day of March, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02944-SMM Document 16 Filed 03/30/06 Page 3 of 3