Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02466/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02466-3/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

Willard Edward Davis, Jr.,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro et. al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-2466-PHX-SMM

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”). The matter was referred to Magistrate

Judge Edward C. Voss for a Report and Recommendation. On October 29, 2007, the

Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court (Doc. 16). On

November 20, 2007, Petitioner filed his Objections to the Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 17). After considering Magistrate Judge Voss’s Report and Recommendation and the

arguments raised in Petitioner's Objections thereto, the Court now issues the following ruling.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court “must

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,”

and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

made by the Magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454

(9th Cir. 1983)). 

///

Case 2:06-cv-02466-SMM Document 18 Filed 11/29/07 Page 1 of 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

 1 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA")

imposes a statute of limitations on federal petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed by state

prisoners. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

- 2 -

DISCUSSION

The detailed procedural history of this case is set forth in Respondents’ Answer to the

Petition (Doc. 12) and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16).

Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on October

17, 2006. ( Doc. 1). 

In ground one, Petitioner contends that his court-appointed counsel provided

ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment by failing to challenge

the State’s amendment of the grand jury indictment to allege dangerousness. In ground two,

he contends that his consecutive sentences violated the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy

Clause. Finally, in ground three Petitioner claims that the State’s amendment of the grand

jury indictment to allege dangerousness violated the Fifth Amendment. On February 21,

2007, Respondents filed an Answer to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 12).

Thereafter, on May 8, 2007, Petitioner filed a Reply to the Answer. (Doc. 15).

Having reviewed the legal conclusions included in Magistrate Judge Voss’s Report

and Recommendation, and the objections thereto, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge

adequately addressed all relevant issues. It is clear that the judgment of conviction in this

case became final prior to the enactment of the AEDPA,1

 thus requiring the application of

the one-year grace period for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner, however,

failed to file his habeas petition within the required time period and the petition is therefore

barred. Consequently, it is not necessary for the Court to address the substantive claims

included in the Petition. Accordingly, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

///

Case 2:06-cv-02466-SMM Document 18 Filed 11/29/07 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

For the reasons set forth above,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation

of Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss (Doc. 16).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(Doc. 1) is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DATED this 29th day of November, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02466-SMM Document 18 Filed 11/29/07 Page 3 of 3