Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08067/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08067-1/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 

Monta Joe Evans, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-16-08067-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge 

Bridget S. Bade, (Doc. 16), regarding Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that the petition be 

denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they 

had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (Doc. 16 at 4 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72).) Petitioner filed his Objection to Report and 

Recommendation on June 24, 2016. (Doc. 17.) 

The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the R&R de novo. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the court must make a de novo 

determination of those portions of the R&R to which specific objections are made). The 

Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determinations, accepts the recommended 

decision within the meaning of Rule 72(b), and overrules Petitioner’s objections. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”). Petitioner has 

Case 3:16-cv-08067-DLR Document 18 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

failed to show that the state court has refused, or will refuse to rule on his Rule 32, 

Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, should he file one. Petitioner has failed to show any 

factual or legal basis that failure to review his writ of habeas corpus will result in a 

fundamental miscarriage of justice. Petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to 

the appointment of counsel. 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, 

(Doc.16), is ACCEPTED. Having considered the issuance of a Certificate of 

Appealability from the order denying Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, a 

Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are 

DENIED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment denying and dismissing 

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, (Doc. 

1), with prejudice, and shall terminate this action. 

Dated this 12th day of August, 2016. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-08067-DLR Document 18 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 2