Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_18-cv-08197/USCOURTS-azd-3_18-cv-08197-0/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

The Court has before it, Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 6), the Answer from the Respondents (Doc. 19), and 

the Petitioner’s Reply. (Doc. 22) Additionally, the Court is in receipt of the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 23), Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 26), and 

the Response to the Objections. (Doc. 27)

In the instant Petition, the Petitioner alleges the trial court improperly instructed the 

jury on the issue of self-defense in violation of federal Due Process. (Doc. 6 at 6)

Additionally, the Petitioner alleges he was denied trial by an impartial jury in violation of 

his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments and that his rights were further violated when 

his right to appeal under state law was obstructed or frustrated by state appellate courts. 

(Id. at 7-8) The Petitioner finally argues ineffective assistance of counsel. (Id. at 9) 

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). When a party files a 

timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R 

Perry Tyrone Parker,

 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Carla Hacker-Agnew, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 No. CV-18-08197-PCT-SPL

ORDER

Case 3:18-cv-08197-SPL Document 28 Filed 01/23/20 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

that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires 

specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). It 

follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific 

objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 

U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial 

economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or

arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and the Court’s 

decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622 

(9th Cir. 2000).

The Court has carefully undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently 

developed record. The Petitioner’s objections to the findings and recommendations have 

also been thoroughly considered, although they constitute a recitation of what was 

previously filed and addressed by Judge Willett. 

After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches 

the same conclusions reached by Judge Willett. Having carefully reviewed the record, the 

Petitioner failed to show that extraordinary circumstances or that newly discovered and 

reliable evidence of actual innocence were the proximate cause of the untimely filing as 

previously addressed in Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir. 2003). The Petitioner 

is not entitled to equitable tolling or habeas relief. The R&R will be adopted in full. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23) is 

accepted and adopted by the Court;

2. That the Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 26) are overruled;

3. That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 6) is denied and this action

is dismissed with prejudice;

4. That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

Case 3:18-cv-08197-SPL Document 28 Filed 01/23/20 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

on appeal are denied because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural 

bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable; and

5. That the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment according and terminate this 

action.

Dated this 22nd day of January 2020.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-08197-SPL Document 28 Filed 01/23/20 Page 3 of 3