Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00129/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00129-1/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 

David Bernard Clark, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Paul O’Connell, et al., 

Respondents.

No. 4:13-CV-0129-TUC-JAS(JR)

ORDER 

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

States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Rateau that recommends denying Petitioner=s habeas 

petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '2254.1

 As Petitioner=s objections do not undermine 

the analysis and proper conclusion reached by Magistrate Judge Rateau, Petitioner=s 

objections are rejected and the Report and Recommendation is adopted. 

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

recommendations de novo, and they are adopted.2

 See 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Fed. R. 

 

1

 The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and 

Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for 

clear error the unobjected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. 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). 

2

 A review of the record reflects that Petitioner may have been on parole rather than 

probation at the time of filing. This fact makes no difference to the correct legal analysis 

contained in the Report and Recommendation. 

Case 4:13-cv-00129-JAS Document 24 Filed 02/20/15 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 

Civ. P. 72; Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); Conley v. 

Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). 

 Petitioner’s most strenuous objection to the Report and Recommendation seems to 

be that it “should have included a reference to Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 

144, 168-69 (1963).” (Doc. 23 at 3). However, the Report and Recommendation 

correctly relies on the controlling Supreme Court authority, Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 

(2003). And in any event, the Report and Recommendation implicitly addresses the key 

prongs of the Mendoza-Martinez test applicable to this case. See Report and 

Recommendation at 8-11. A de novo review of the record and pertinent authority reveals 

that explicitly citing Mendoza-Martinez would not materially change the analysis in the 

Report and Recommendation. 

 Before Petitioner can appeal this Court's judgment, a certificate of appealability 

must issue. See 28 U.S.C. '2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 22(b) requires the district court that rendered a judgment denying 

the petition made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '2254 to "either issue a certificate of 

appealability or state why a certificate should not issue." Additionally, 28 U.S.C. 

'2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate may issue "only if the applicant has made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." In the certificate, the court 

must indicate which specific issues satisfy this showing. See 28 U.S.C. '2253(c)(3). A 

substantial showing is made when the resolution of an issue of appeal is debatable among 

reasonable jurists, if courts could resolve the issues differently, or if the issue deserves 

further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Upon review 

of the record in light of the standards for granting a certificate of appealability, the Court 

concludes that a certificate shall not issue as the resolution of the petition is not debatable 

among reasonable jurists and does not deserve further proceedings. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is accepted and adopted. 

Case 4:13-cv-00129-JAS Document 24 Filed 02/20/15 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 

(2) Petitioner=s '2254 habeas petition is denied and this case is dismissed with prejudice. 

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

(4) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file in this case. 

 

 Dated this 19th day of February, 2015. 

Honorable James A. Soto 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:13-cv-00129-JAS Document 24 Filed 02/20/15 Page 3 of 3