Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01450/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01450-1/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 

Miguel Angel Garfias-Ortega,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-01450-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 

Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on July 16, 2013 (Doc. 1). 

Respondents filed an Answer on October 1, 2013 (Doc. 11), arguing that, for the vast 

majority of claims Petitioner raised, relief was barred either by Petitioner’s failure to 

exhaust his federal claims in state court or because he had procedurally defaulted on 

them, and the few remaining claims not barred or defaulted lacked merit. Petitioner filed 

a Reply in support of his Petition on October 30, 2013 (Doc. 14). 

 On April 22, 2014, the Magistrate Judge made her Report and Recommendation 

(Doc. 16) that the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge 

also recommended denial of a Certificate of Appealability because the dismissal of the 

Petition was justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the 

procedural ruling debatable, or because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right. 

Case 2:13-cv-01450-JJT Document 22 Filed 07/16/14 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 

 On May 28, 2014, Petitioner filed timely written objections (Doc. 19) that did not 

address any error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis of timeliness and procedural default 

or lack of merits and failure to show prejudice, but reiterated and re-argued his view of 

the facts of the case at all levels. Respondents filed a brief response to Petitioner's 

objections on June 12, 2014 (Doc. 20). 

 Upon de novo review, the Court is in agreement with the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Court overrules Petitioner’s Objections to 

the Report and Recommendation, including his objection to the recommendation of 

denial of a Certificate of Appealability. 

 Petitioner asserts a multitude of claims, which could be counted and numbered 

many different ways. For the sake of consistency and ease of reference, the Court will 

use the numbering convention and claim classification system initiated by Respondent 

and adopted by the Magistrate Judge. That system classifies Petitioner's challenges to his 

conviction and sentence as claims one through 11, with claims one and eight having 

multiple subparts. 

 For the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, 

claims 1(c) and 2 through 11 are barred from federal habeas review by Petitioner’s failure 

to exhaust state court review or by procedural default. The Magistrate Judge further 

concluded correctly after analysis that Petitioner failed to establish a "fundamental 

miscarriage of justice" or "cause and prejudice" to overcome the procedural bar of default 

on any of these claims. 

 Petitioner did properly exhaust claims 1(a) and 1(b) in state court, and both are 

thus properly before this Court on habeas review. However, as the Magistrate Judge 

properly concluded after analysis, the state sentencing court's errors in claims 1(a) and 

1(b) resulted in no prejudice to Petitioner. 

 IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 19). 

Case 2:13-cv-01450-JJT Document 22 Filed 07/16/14 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 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court (Doc. 16). 

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

Corpus is denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Certificate of Appealability. The 

denial of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not 

find the procedural ruling debatable, and because Petitioner has not made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

 Dated this 15th day of July, 2014. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge

Case 2:13-cv-01450-JJT Document 22 Filed 07/16/14 Page 3 of 3