Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02393/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02393-2/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Sihir Hassan Zihir, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV10-2393-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 In 1982, Petitioner Sihir Hassan Zihir1

 was convicted in Pinal County Superior 

Court, Case No. 9553, of dangerous or deadly assault by an inmate in custody and 

possession of a dangerous or deadly instrument by an inmate in custody. Doc. 23-1, at 2. 

On February 16, 1982, the trial court sentenced Zihir to a mandatory term of life 

imprisonment without the possibility of parole until he served at least 25 years on the 

assault conviction. The court sentenced Zihir to four years’ imprisonment on the 

possession of a deadly weapon conviction. Doc. 23-1, at 16. The court upheld Zihir’s 

convictions and sentences on direct appeal and dismissed his post-conviction action. 

Doc. 23-1, at 62, 68. Zihir did not seek review in the Arizona Court of Appeals. 

 In 2009, Zihir sent a letter to the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency asserting 

that he was entitled to a hearing to determine his parole status, but that no such hearing 

had been held. Doc. 23-1, at 72. Zihir also filed an Inmate Grievance in June 2010 with 

 

1

 Petitioner was formerly known as David Samuel Goldston. 

Case 2:10-cv-02393-DGC Document 35 Filed 12/14/11 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

the Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADC”), complaining that he had been 

erroneously deemed ineligible for a parole-eligibility hearing. The ADC explained that 

Zihir would have been eligible for a hearing in July 2009 under his original sentence, but 

that because of disciplinary violations, his earliest possible parole eligibility date was 

now April 29, 2012. Doc. 23-1, at 70. Zihir’s administrative appeal of this decision was 

denied on August 18, 2010. Doc. 23-1, at 75. 

 On November 4, 2010, Zihir filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 1. The Court dismissed the petition and gave Zihir 

leave to amend to allege a violation of federal constitutional or statutory rights. Doc. 8. 

On April 13, 2011, Zihir filed a second amended petition raising four claims for habeas 

relief. Doc. 15. The Court required Respondents to answer the petition. Doc. 16, at 2. 

Respondents filed an answer (Doc. 23) and Zihir filed a reply (Doc. 26). United States 

Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”), 

finding that Zihir’s claims were not cognizable on federal habeas review. Doc. 29. Judge 

Anderson recommended that Zihir’s petition be denied and that a certificate of 

appealability (“COA”) and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied. Id. 

Zihir has filed an objection to the R&R (Doc. 33) and Respondents have filed a response 

(Doc. 34). Neither party has requested oral argument. For the reasons below, the Court 

will accept the R&R and deny the petition. 

I. Standard of Review.

 A party may file specific written objections to the R&R’s proposed findings and 

recommendations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court must 

undertake a de novo review of those portions of the R & R to which specific objections 

are made. See id.; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Case 2:10-cv-02393-DGC Document 35 Filed 12/14/11 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

II. Discussion.

 Zihir objects to Judge Anderson’s findings on the ground that he has “satisfied the 

superior court’s sentencing commitment” and yet “the Department of Corrections, which 

is a state-entity, refuses to certify this Petitioner eligible for parole . . . .” Doc. 33, at 2, 3. 

Zihir argues that “[t]he problem lies with the Department of Corrections administrator’s 

inability to correctly interpret and carry out or administrate, the Arizona Revised Statutes, 

which are directly under the Arizona State’s Constitution which in turn, is under the 

United States Constitution.” Id. at 3. 

 The federal habeas statute requires a petitioner to allege a “violation of the 

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The Supreme 

Court has repeatedly stated that “federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of 

state law.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991) (quoting Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 

U.S. 764, 780 (1990)). “There is no right under the Federal Constitution to be 

conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence, and the States are under 

no duty to offer parole to their prisoners.” Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862 

(2011). Zihir challenges the application of a state law, and therefore his claims are not 

cognizable on federal habeas review. McCowan v. Nelson, 436 F.2d 758, 759 

(9th Cir. 1970) (holding that the defendant’s challenge to the state’s application of parole 

statutes raised only questions of state law, and was therefore not cognizable on federal 

habeas corpus review). 

 The R&R also recommended that a COA and leave to proceed in forma pauperis

on appeal be denied because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial 

of a constitutional right. Doc. 29, at 5. Zihir has not objected or shown that a COA and 

leave to appeal in forma pauperis are warranted. The Court therefore adopts the R&R’s 

recommendations. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Judge Anderson’s R&R (Doc. 29) is accepted. 

 2. The second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 15) is denied. 

Case 2:10-cv-02393-DGC Document 35 Filed 12/14/11 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

 3. A certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on 

appeal are denied as stated above. 

 Dated this 13th day of December, 2011. 

Case 2:10-cv-02393-DGC Document 35 Filed 12/14/11 Page 4 of 4