Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00799/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00799-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Wilson Yazzie Jean,

 Petitioner,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-00799-PHX-PGR (SPL)

 

 ORDER

 

The Court having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of

Magistrate Judge Logan, filed on October 31, 2012, notwithstanding that no party

has filed any objection to the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the

Magistrate Judge correctly determined that Grounds One and Two of the petitioner’s

habeas petition, which he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be dismissed

and that the petitioner’s claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, which he raised

only in his Traverse, should also be dismissed.

First, Grounds One and Two must be dismissed because they are

procedurally defaulted inasmuch as the petitioner failed to fairly present them in

state court, he has not shown any cause for the default or any actual prejudice

arising from the default, and he has he demonstrated that any miscarriage of

Case 2:12-cv-00799-PGR Document 16 Filed 12/18/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

justice would result if the merits of the claims are not addressed. Furthermore, the

claims are not in any case cognizable federal claims.

Second, assuming that the petitioner has properly raised an ineffective

assistance of counsel claim, the claim must be dismissed because the petitioner has

not demonstrated that the state court’s decision that the petitioner had not satisfied

the Strickland test is contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established

Supreme Court law or that it was based on an unreasonable determination of the

facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court. Therefore,

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

(Doc. 15) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied and that

this action is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue and

leave to appeal in forma pauperis is denied because the dismissal of the petitioner’s

habeas petition is justified because the petitioner has not made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 18th day of December, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00799-PGR Document 16 Filed 12/18/12 Page 2 of 2