Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00883/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00883-1/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 

Gregory Keith Jones, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan; Attorney General of the 

State of Arizona, 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-00883-PHX-NVW (JFM)

ORDER 

and 

DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY 

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf (Doc. 15) 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. (R&R at 73 (citing Rule 

72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; See also Rule 8(b), Rules Governing Section 

2254 Proceedings.) Petitioner filed objections on April 5, 2016 (Doc. 17). 

The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and 

Recommendation 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 Report and 

Recommendation 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), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner’s objections. See 28 

Case 2:15-cv-00883-NVW Document 19 Filed 05/04/16 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 

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”). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 15) is accepted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court 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. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

Having considered the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability from the order 

denying Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, IT IS ORDERED that a 

Certificate of Appealability is denied because: 

(A) Petitioner has procedurally defaulted on: (1) Ground 2(b) (ineffectiveness 

re Brady claim); (2) the portion of Ground 3(b) (ineffectiveness re prejudicial evidence 

on dismissed count) which relates to trial counsel; (3) Ground 4(a) (ineffectiveness re 

plea agreement); (4) Ground 4(d) (ineffectiveness re testimonial objections); and (5) 

Ground 4(g) (ineffectiveness re appeal on motion in limine). Petitioner was procedurally 

barred on independent and adequate state grounds from asserting: (1) Ground 1(a) 

(privacy); and (2) Ground 2(a) (Brady claim). Petitioner has failed to show cause and 

prejudice or actual innocence to avoid the effects of his procedural defaults and 

procedural bars; 

(B) Petitioner has failed to show a substantial constitutional question on: (1) 

Grounds 1(b) (Franks claim); (2) Ground 3(a) (prejudicial evidence re dismissed count); 

(3) the portion of Ground 3(b) (ineffectiveness re prejudicial evidence on dismissed 

count) which relates to appellate counsel; (4) Ground 4(b) (ineffectiveness re failure to 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:15-cv-00883-NVW Document 19 Filed 05/04/16 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 

present a defense); (5) Ground 4(c) (ineffectiveness re discovery); (6) Ground 4(e) 

(ineffectiveness re SDO allegation); and (7) Ground 4(f) (ineffectiveness re privacy); and 

(C) Jurists would not reasonably disagree on these questions. 

Dated: May 4, 2016. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-00883-NVW Document 19 Filed 05/04/16 Page 3 of 3