Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_15-cv-08098/USCOURTS-azd-3_15-cv-08098-1/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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

John S. Brannock, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Unknown Party, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-15-08098-PCT-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) (“R&R”) in this matter 

submitted by United States Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle, concluding that the Court 

should deny and dismiss the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 5). Also at issue is Petitioner’s Motion (Doc. 17) to hold in abeyance 

the Amended Petition Pending his exhaustion of claims in the state court, to which 

Respondents have filed an opposition (Doc. 18). 

 The time for the parties to object to the R&R passed and no party filed any 

objections, timely or otherwise. The Court may thus accept the R&R without further 

review and dismiss the Petition. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th

Cir. 2003). The Court nonetheless reviews the R&R on its merits. Upon that review, the 

Court concludes the R&R is correct in its conclusions regarding each of Petitioner’s 

grounds for review, and adopts the R&R in whole. 

Case 3:15-cv-08098-JJT Document 19 Filed 09/08/16 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 

 Because it adopts the R&R, the Court will not repeat the analysis contained 

therein. The Court concludes Judge Boyle appropriately evaluated each ground on the 

merits and correctly concluded none of the grounds succeeded. 

 Petitioner’s Motion (Doc. 17) to stay or hold in abeyance the Amended Petition 

fails. Upon issuance of the R&R, Petitioner had fourteen days to either file objections or 

to file another motion. His deadline fell on May 3, 2016. Petitioner filed nothing by May 

3, 2016, and at that point the Court could deem his failure to object as consent for it to 

accept the R&R’s recommendations. He eventually filed the Motion to stay the Petition 

on May 11, 2016.1

 Even if Petitioner’s filing was deemed timely, the Motion cannot 

succeed. 

 In the Motion, Petitioner asks the Court to suspend consideration of his Amended 

Habeas Petition until he exhausts what he refers to as his “new claims” in a state PCR 

review. But what Petitioner refers to as “new claims” are part and parcel of his Ground 

Four in the existing Petition—a claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel—which 

the R&R has already evaluated on the merits and found lacking. Exhaustion of 

Petitioner’s purportedly “new claims” thus would be futile, as they have already been 

treated as if exhausted and received a merits review. The Court will deny the Motion. 

 IT IS ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Motion to Hold Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus in Abeyance Pending Exhaustion of IAC Claims in State Court (Doc. 17). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting in whole Judge Boyle’s R&R (Doc. 16) in 

this matter. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying and dismissing with prejudice the Amended 

Petition (Doc. 5). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis in this matter because dismissal of the Amended Petition is 

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

 

1

 Petitioner certifies that he delivered his Motion to prison officials on May 11, 2016. It was not received by the Clerk of Court or manually filed in until May 16, 2016. The Court will credit Petitioner with the earlier May 11, 2016 date. 

Case 3:15-cv-08098-JJT Document 19 Filed 09/08/16 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 

debatable, and because Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial 

of a Constitutional right. 

 Dated this 8th day of September, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-08098-JJT Document 19 Filed 09/08/16 Page 3 of 3