Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-04545/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-04545-2/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

Jason Jamar James,

Petitioner,

v. 

Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-18-04545-PHX-JJT (MTM)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE JOHN J. TUCHI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Petitioner Jason Jamar James has filed a second amended pro se Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. 9) and an emergency motion for release 

(doc. 34). 

I. Summary of Conclusion.

Petitioner alleges two grounds for relief. Petitioner’s claims, however, are 

procedurally defaulted as he did not complete one full round of review in the state courts. 

Petitioner does not establish cause for this procedural default. Therefore, this Court will 

recommend that Petitioner’s habeas claims be denied and dismissed with prejudice. The 

Court also recommends that Petitioner’s emergency motion to release petitioner be denied

and dismissed with prejudice.

/

/

/

Case 2:18-cv-04545-JJT Document 40 Filed 04/21/20 Page 1 of 9
- 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

II. Background.

A. Procedural Background.

On September 28, 2001, following a trial where Petitioner was found guilty of 

second-degree murder, Petitioner was sentenced to an aggravated prison sentence of 19 

years, with credit given for 922 days, followed by a 32-month term of community 

supervision. (Doc. 25-1, Exs. B-C, at 36-43). 

On March 16, 2018, Petitioner was released from custody into community 

supervision. (Doc. 25-1, Ex. D, at 45). Petitioner read and signed the Arizona Condition of 

Supervision and received reporting instructions and a copy of the Conditions of 

Supervision. Id. On October 3, 2018, “a white powdery substance was discovered” at the 

Maricopa Reentry Center in an empty cell, and later video footage showed Petitioner as 

the only person entering the room. (Doc. 25-1, Ex. E, at 48). Petitioner was also observed 

displaying “suspicious behavior” prior to the discovery of the “white powdery substance,”

including “entering several cells, pacing, speaking with animation, fidgeting, and excessive 

window watching.” Id. On October 4, 2018, Petitioner was discharged from the state 

substance abuse treatment program and reentry center “because of use/possession of an 

illegal substance” and was arrested the same day due to a violation of his “Condition of 

Supervision #5, as demonstrated by his act of knowingly possessing or using a narcotic 

drug on 10/03/2018 in Maricopa County.” (Doc. 25-1, Exs. D, E, G at 45, 48, 78). 

On October 23, 2018, the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency notified Petitioner 

that his revocation hearing was scheduled for November 13, 2018. (Doc. 25-1, Ex. G, at 

85). On November 13, 2018, the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency revoked 

Petitioner’s supervised release based on findings that Petitioner had violated the terms and 

conditions of his supervision, that he was delinquent “and had or may have lapsed into 

criminal ways or company.” (Doc. 25-1, Ex. G, at 87).

On July 29, 2019, the “white powdery substance” was tested by the Arizona 

Criminal Investigations Unit and tested positive for methamphetamine. (Doc. 25-1, Ex. I, 

at 114). On August 1, 2019, Petitioner was served with an updated warrant of arrest. (Id. 

Case 2:18-cv-04545-JJT Document 40 Filed 04/21/20 Page 2 of 9
- 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

at 110). On August 15, 2019, the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency held a second 

revocation hearing, in which it found Petitioner had violated the terms of his community 

supervision and revoked his community supervision. (Doc. 25-1, Ex. I, at 108). 

B. Post-Conviction Relief Proceedings.

On May 30, 2019, Petitioner filed a notice of request for post-conviction relief 

(“PCR”) with the Superior Court for Maricopa County. (Doc. 25-1, Ex. F, at 61). On 

August 22, 2019, Petitioner filed several motions: (1) a motion requesting the video footage 

from his reentry center, which was denied on August 27, 2019 (doc. 25-1, Exs. J, K at 116, 

119); (2) a “Motion Requesting Arizona Department of Corrections and or Centurion to 

Produce Medical Records and to Produce Records in Full from Revocation Hearing and 

Produce the Defendant’s Prison Record” (doc. 25-1, Exs. L, M at 121, 122), which was 

denied on August 29, 2019; (3) a “Motion to Dismiss Warrant and Release Defendant,” 

which was denied on August 26, 2019 (doc. 25-1, Exs. N, O at 127, 139); and (4) a motion 

requesting court-appointed counsel, which was granted on August 28, 2019 (doc. 25-1, Ex. 

P, at 141). 

On December 3, 2019, the Superior Court dismissed Petitioner’s PCR petition. 

(Doc. 37-1, Ex. F). On December 16, 2019, the Court denied Defendant’s pro per “Motion 

to Dismiss Counsel and Allow Defendant Pro Per and 10 Day Extension to File Plaintiff’s 

Response to Rule 32.” (Doc. 37-1, Ex. G). 

C. Federal Habeas Petition and Emergency Motion.

On December 7, 2018, Petitioner filed his initial habeas petition. (Doc. 1). On 

December 12, 2018, the petition was dismissed with leave to amend. (Doc. 4). On January 

9, 2019, Petitioner filed his first amended petition. (Doc. 5). On February 14, 2019, the 

first amended petition was dismissed with leave to amend. (Doc. 8). On March 11, 2019, 

Petitioner filed his second amended petition. (Doc. 9). In Ground One, Petitioner alleges a 

violation of his Fourteenth and Fourth Amendment rights for serving an unconstitutional 

sentence of parole after completion of a full prison term. (Id. at 7). In Ground Two, 

Case 2:18-cv-04545-JJT Document 40 Filed 04/21/20 Page 3 of 9
- 4 -

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

Petitioner alleges a violation of his right to due process as he was not provided with the 

warrant for his arrest or the establishing evidence prior to his revocation hearing. (Id. at 8).

On October 7, 2019, Respondents filed their response. (Doc. 25). On October 16, 2019, 

Petitioner filed his reply. (Doc. 27). 

On March 25, 2020, Petitioner filed a “Motion to Release Petitioner/Emergency” 

due to the current COVID-19 pandemic and Petitioner’s underlying medical issues such as 

asthma and degenerative disk disease. (Doc. 34). On March 30, 2020, Respondents filed 

their response to the motion. (Doc. 35).

On March 31, 2020, the Court ordered Respondents to supplement their response to 

the habeas petition with any filings and rulings in the state post-conviction relief 

proceedings from October 2019 until present. (Doc. 36). On April 3, 2020, Respondents 

filed their supplement. (Doc. 37). On April 14, 2020, Petitioner filed his reply to the 

supplement. (Doc. 38). On April 16, 2020, Petitioner filed a supplement to his emergency 

motion. (Doc. 39). 

III. Standard of Review.

A. Exhaustion and Procedural Default.

Ordinarily, a federal court may not grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus unless 

a petitioner has exhausted available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). To exhaust state 

remedies, a petitioner must afford the state courts the opportunity to rule upon the merits 

of his federal claims by “fairly presenting” them to the state’s “highest” court in a 

procedurally appropriate manner. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (“[t]o provide 

the State with the necessary ‘opportunity,’ the prisoner must ‘fairly present’ his claim in 

each appropriate state court . . . thereby alerting that court to the federal nature of the 

claim”).

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

facts and the federal legal theory on which his claim is based. See id. at 33. A “state prisoner 

does not ‘fairly present’ a claim to a state court if that court must read beyond a petition or 

brief . . . that does not alert it to the presence of a federal claim in order to find material, 

Case 2:18-cv-04545-JJT Document 40 Filed 04/21/20 Page 4 of 9
- 5 -

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

such as a lower court opinion in the case, that does so.” Id. at 31-32. Thus, “a petitioner 

fairly and fully presents a claim to the state court for purposes of satisfying the exhaustion 

requirement if he presents the claim: (1) to the proper forum . . . (2) through the proper 

vehicle, . . . and (3) by providing the proper factual and legal basis for the claim.”

Insyxiengmay v. Morgan, 403 F.3d 657, 668 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted).

The requirement that a petitioner exhaust available state court remedies promotes 

comity by ensuring that the state courts have the first opportunity to address alleged 

violations of a state prisoner’s federal rights. See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 178 

(2001); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991). Principles of comity also require 

federal courts to respect state procedural bars to review of a habeas petitioner’s claims. See

Coleman, 501 U.S. at 731-32. Under these principles, a habeas petitioner’s claims may be 

precluded from federal review in two situations.

First, a claim may be procedurally defaulted and barred from federal habeas corpus 

review when a petitioner failed to present his federal claims to the state court, but returning 

to state court would be “futile” because the state court’s procedural rules, such as waiver 

or preclusion, would bar consideration of the previously unraised claims. See Teague v. 

Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 297-99 (1989); Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 987 (9th Cir. 2002). If 

no state remedies are currently available, a claim is technically exhausted, but procedurally 

defaulted. Coleman, 501 U.S. at 735 n.1.

Second, a claim may be procedurally barred when a petitioner raised a claim in state 

court, but the state court found the claim barred on state procedural grounds. See Beard v. 

Kindler, 558 U.S. 53, 59 (2009). “[A] habeas petitioner who has failed to meet the State’s 

procedural requirements for presenting his federal claim has deprived the state courts of an 

opportunity to address those claims in the first instance.” Coleman, 501 U.S. at 731-32. In 

this situation, federal habeas corpus review is precluded if the state court opinion relies “on 

a state-law ground that is both ‘independent’ of the merits of the federal claim and an 

‘adequate’ basis for the court’s decision.” Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 260 (1989).

A procedurally defaulted claim may not be barred from federal review, however, “if 

Case 2:18-cv-04545-JJT Document 40 Filed 04/21/20 Page 5 of 9
- 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

the petitioner can demonstrate either (1) ‘cause for the default and actual prejudice as a 

result of the alleged violation of federal law,’ or (2) ‘that failure to consider the claims will 

result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.’” Jones v. Ryan, 691 F.3d 1093, 1101 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (quoting Coleman, 501 U.S. at 732). To establish “cause,” a petitioner must 

establish that some objective factor external to the defense impeded his efforts to comply 

with the state’s procedural rules. Cook v. Schriro, 538 F.3d 1000, 1027 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(quoting Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488-89 (1986)). To establish prejudice, a 

petitioner must show that the alleged error “worked to his actual and substantial 

disadvantage, infecting his entire trial with error of constitutional dimensions.” United 

States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 170 (1982); Thomas v. Lewis, 945 F.2d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 

1996). Where a petitioner fails to establish either cause or prejudice, the Court need not 

reach the other requirement. See Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1105 n.6 (9th Cir. 1999); 

Cook, 538 F.3d at 1028 n.13.

B. Grounds One and Two.

The instant habeas Petition is procedurally defaulted. Petitioner’s PCR petition was 

dismissed on December 3, 2019, by the Superior Court of Maricopa County. (Doc. 37-1, 

Ex. F). Petitioner had 30 days to file a petition for review of this decision to the Arizona 

Court of Appeals. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.16(a). Petitioner did not file any appeal, therefore, 

his claims were not “fairly presented” to each appropriate state court. Baldwin, 541 U.S. at

29. Returning to state court at this point would be “futile” because the unraised claims are 

precluded from appellate review. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a); State v. Samaniego, 2014 WL 

249565, at *2 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2014). Therefore, Petitioner’s claims are technically 

exhausted but procedurally defaulted. Coleman, 501 U.S. at 732.

Petitioner does not establish cause for his procedural default. In his reply to 

Respondents’ answer to his habeas petition, Petitioner stated he “has filed a habeas corpus 

writ without presenting the issues to the appellate courts because he is being held 

unlawfully and this court has the jurisdiction to decide this fact.” (Doc. 27, at 2). 

Petitioner’s admission that he filed his habeas Petition without seeking exhaustion of his 

Case 2:18-cv-04545-JJT Document 40 Filed 04/21/20 Page 6 of 9
- 7 -

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

claims in Arizona’s appellate court is also an acknowledgment that it was his choice to 

forego review by an appellate court, rather than an objective external factor, that caused 

his procedural default. Petitioner’s choice does not constitute “cause” for his procedural 

default. See Cook, 538 F.3d at 1027. 

After the PCR petition was dismissed and this Court ordered Respondents to 

supplement the record with additional filings from the PCR proceedings, Petitioner filed a 

reply in which he alleges his PCR counsel “did not file any motions on his behalf nor advise 

him to file in the court of appeals.” (Doc. 38, at 7). “Because a prisoner does not have a 

constitutional right to counsel in state postconviction proceedings,” an attorney error in 

those proceedings does not amount to constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel and

“does not qualify as cause to excuse a procedural default.” Davila v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 

2058, 2062 (2017) (citing Coleman, 501 U.S. 722). Because Petitioner fails to establish 

cause, the Court need not consider the prejudice factor. Hiivala, 195 F.3d at 1105 n.6. 

Petitioner’s claims are procedurally defaulted.

C. Emergency Motion for Release.

Petitioner also seeks release related to the risks associated with COVID-19. (Doc. 

34). While a habeas corpus action is the appropriate vehicle through which to seek release 

from prison, see Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-90 (1973), the instant action does 

not challenge the risk to Petitioner due to COVID-19. Instead, this action challenges 

Petitioner’s revocation of community supervision and, as discussed above, the undersigned 

will recommend that his petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. Therefore, it will 

be also recommended that Petitioner’s motion for release be denied.1 

IV. Conclusion.

The Court finds that Petitioner’s habeas claims are procedurally defaulted without 

1 Additionally, if Petitioner has not exhausted state remedies, he is not entitled to federal 

habeas relief unless there is “an absence of available State corrective process” or 

“circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the 

applicant.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). The record does not establish that Petitioner brought this

claim in any state proceeding, and Petitioner does not allege the absence or inadequacy of 

a state corrective process to protect his rights. Therefore, his claims regarding the risks 

associated with COVID-19 are unexhausted and not eligible for federal habeas relief.

Case 2:18-cv-04545-JJT Document 40 Filed 04/21/20 Page 7 of 9
- 8 -

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

cause. The Court will therefore recommend that the second amended Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus (doc. 9) and the motion for emergency release (doc. 34) be denied and 

dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the second amended Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. 9) and the emergency motion 

for release (doc. 34) be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be DENIED because the dismissal of the Petition 

is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling 

debatable, and because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.

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 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this Report and 

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 14 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 

/

/

/

/

/

Case 2:18-cv-04545-JJT Document 40 Filed 04/21/20 Page 8 of 9
- 9 -

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

findings of fact in an order of judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

Dated this 21st day of April, 2020.

Honorable Michael T. Morrissey

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:18-cv-04545-JJT Document 40 Filed 04/21/20 Page 9 of 9