Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08075/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08075-0/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 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Alvaro Carillo-Rodriguez, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV 16-08075-PCT-GMS (DMF) 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 

TO THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

JUDGE: 

Petitioner Alvaro Carillo-Rodriguez (“Petitioner” or “Carillo-Rodriguez”) filed a 

timely amended pro se petition for habeas corpus (“Petition”) (Docs. 6, 8). District Judge 

Snow ordered Respondents to answer the Petition (Doc. 9), noting that the issues in the 

Petition have not been exhausted (Doc. 9 at p. 2-3). Respondents answered (Doc. 13) 

stating that they waive the exhaustion requirement and asserting that the Petition’s state 

law claims are not colorable and the Petition should be dismissed with prejudice on that 

basis. The time for reply passed without a reply being filed. For the reasons below, it is 

recommended that the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

I. The Petition Raises No Cognizable Federal Claim 

 While the Petition is unexhausted, Respondents expressly “waive the exhaustion 

requirement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3)” (Doc. 13 at p. 2). Respondents do so “[a]s a 

matter of economy and expediency” because “it is perfectly clear that the claims are not 

colorable, and thus, the habeas petition should be dismissed with prejudice on that basis. 

Case 3:16-cv-08075-GMS Document 14 Filed 01/10/17 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 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2); Bell v. Cone, 543 U.S. 447, 451 n.3 (2005); Murray (Roger) 

v. Schriro, 746 F.3d 418, 447 (9th Cir. 2014)” (Id.). 

 The Petition is focused solely whether the Arizona Department of Corrections 

time credit calculation for his two sentences, one from a Maricopa County case and 

another from a Yavapai County case, is correct in light of the sentences and court orders 

in those cases (Docs. 6, 8). The Maricopa County sentence preceded the Yavapai County 

sentence (Doc. 8 at p. 8-12, p. 13-16). The Yavapai County court has rejected 

Petitioner’s claims (Doc. 8 at p. 27-28). 

 The Petition is identifies two grounds for relief, but does not allege any violation 

of federal law (Doc. 6 at p. 6-7). Instead, the Petition requests this Court to overrule the 

Yavapai County state court decisions regarding presentence credit under state law for the 

time Petitioner spent in custody in the Maricopa County case. A federal court may only 

consider a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner alleges that “he is in custody 

in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 

2254(a); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (“In conducting habeas review, a 

federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the Constitution, laws, 

or treaties of the United States.”); Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir. 1989) 

(per curiam) (“A habeas petition must allege the petitioner’s detention violates the 

constitution, a federal statute, or a treaty.”) “[F]ederal habeas corpus does not lie for 

errors of state law.” Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67; 

Moreover, there is no federal constitutional right 

to presentence incarceration credit. Lewis v. Cardwell, 609 F.2d 926, 928 (9th Cir. 

1979) (quoting Gray v. Warden of Montana State Prison, 523 F.2d 989, 990 (9th Cir. 

1975) (stating that “[t]he origin of the modern concept of pre-conviction jail time credit 

upon the term of the ultimate sentence of imprisonment is of legislative grace and not a 

constitutional guarantee.”)); see also Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th 

Cir. 1994) (“[t]he decision whether to impose sentences concurrently or consecutively is 

a matter of state criminal procedure and is not within the purview of federal habeas 

corpus”). Thus, the Court finds that the Petition’s grounds are not cognizable in this 

Case 3:16-cv-08075-GMS Document 14 Filed 01/10/17 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 

proceeding. Accordingly, 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 6) be 

denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability be 

denied because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists 

of reason would not find the ruling debatable. 

 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 fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the 

parties have fourteen (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 findings of fact in an 

order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 

72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Dated this 9th day of January, 2017. 

Honorable Deborah M. Fine

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-08075-GMS Document 14 Filed 01/10/17 Page 3 of 3