Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01639/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01639-3/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

1

 While the petitioner has requested that he be allowed to file a reply to

the respondent’s response to his objections, the Court will not permit him to do so

because Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2) does not authorize the filing of such a reply, see

Cannon Partners, Ltd. v. Cape Cod Biolab Corp., 225 F.R.D. 247, 250

(N.D.Cal.2003); Bradberry v. Schriro, 2009 WL 971298, at *1 (D.Ariz. April 8,

2009), and because the petitioner’s proposed reply does not add anything

significant to the several memoranda the petitioner has already filed.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Lee Hess,

Petitioner,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1639-PHX-PGR (JI)

 

 ORDER

Having reviewed de novo the thorough Report and Recommendation of

Magistrate Judge Irwin in light of the petitioner’s Objections to the Report and

Recommendation Dated May 12, 2009 (doc. #76) and Respondents’ Response to

Petitioner’s Objection to Report and Recommendation (doc. #77)1

, the Court finds

that the petitioner’s objections should be overruled as being without merit and

that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the petitioner’s petition for a

writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be denied.

Case 2:06-cv-01639-PGR Document 79 Filed 08/25/09 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

- 2 -

The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined 

(1) that Grounds 3, 4, and 12 of the habeas petition are procedurally defaulted

inasmuch as the petitioner, by failing to fairly present them to the state courts as

federal issues, did not properly exhaust them and is now procedurally barred from

doing so, (2) that Ground 11 was properly found by the state courts to be

procedurally barred based on independent and adequate state law grounds, and

(3) that these four claims must be dismissed with prejudice because petitioner

has failed to demonstrate any cause or prejudice sufficient to excuse his defaults,

and has failed to show the existence of any actual innocence sufficient to

establish that a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result from the Court not

reaching the merits of these claims.

The Court further concludes that the Magistrate Judge properly analyzed

the merits of the petitioner’s exhausted claims, Grounds 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and

13, and correctly determined that they must be dismissed as being factually

and/or legally meritless. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File Reply to

Respondents‘ Response to Petitioner’s Objection to Report and

Recommendation (doc. #78) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (doc. #71) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied and

that this action is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-01639-PGR Document 79 Filed 08/25/09 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

- 3 -

shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 24th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:06-cv-01639-PGR Document 79 Filed 08/25/09 Page 3 of 3