Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01121/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01121-1/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

Andres Carmona Meza, )) Petitioner, ) No. CV-05-1121-PHX-PGR (LOA) ) vs. )) ORDER and OPINION Deputy Warden Perkins, et al., )) Respondents. ) ) 

Pending before the Court is the petitioner's Notice of Change of Judge,

Lawrence O. Anderson, Pursuant to Sections 351-364 of Title 28 of the United

States Code (doc. #15), which the Court construes as a motion for recusal

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 and § 455 based on alleged bias or prejudice. 

Although it is not entirely clear, it appears that the petitioner is requesting that the

Court recuse Magistrate Judge Anderson because he has ruled against the

petitioner in this case and in previous cases and because the petitioner has filed

a complaint of judicial misconduct against him with the Ninth Circuit. The Court

finds that recusal is not warranted because (1) it is only in the "rarest circumstances" that adverse judicial rulings evidence the pervasive bias required for

recusal for cause, Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147,

1157 (1994), and the petitioner has not made any showing that Magistrate Judge

Anderson has displayed such a deep-seated antagonism against him that would

Case 2:05-cv-01121-PGR Document 33 Filed 04/05/06 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

 Magistrate Judge Anderson recommended the dismissal of the habeas petition

because the petitioner had procedurally defaulted on nine of his ten claims because he had not

presented them to either the Arizona Superior Court or to the Arizona Court of Appeals, and the

petitioner had failed to make a showing of cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of

justice as to those defaulted claims, and because the petitioner's remaining claim (his sixth

claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel which he had properly raised on post-conviction

relief) failed on its merits.

2

 The petitioner's appeal to the Ninth Circuit from the Report and Recommendation is

legally meritless because a Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order, as

Magistrate Judge Anderson specifically made clear in the Report and Recommendation. 

Furthermore, to the extent that the petitioner is attempting to argue in his Notice of Appeal that

Magistrate Judge Anderson had no authority to issue the Report and Recommendation because

this Court had previously withdrawn the case from Magistrate Judge Anderson, he is mistaken. 

The Court merely withdrew two specific motions, stating in both withdrawal of reference orders

(docs. #19 and #27) that "all other matters in this action shall remain with the Magistrate Judge

for disposition as appropriate.")

3

 To the extent that the petitioner's Motion to Stay Appeal should be liberally construed

as a motion requesting this Court to hold this action in abeyance while the petitioner returns to

the state courts to exhaust his non-exhausted claims, the Court declines to do so given the

petitioner's failure to establish good cause for not presenting his nine non-exhausted claims to

the Arizona state courts and his failure to establish that his non-exhausted claims are

(continued...)

- 2 -

make fair judgment impossible, id., and (2) the mere fact that the petitioner has

filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Magistrate Judge Anderson does not

require recusal. See United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 1986)

("A judge is not disqualified by a litigant's suit or threatened suit against him, ... or

by a litigant's intemperate and scurrilous attacks [against him.]")

Also pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Anderson's Report and

Recommendation (doc. #30), filed February 27, 2006, in which he recommends

that the petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 be denied.1

 Rather than timely filing a document specified as an objection

to the Report and Recommendation, the petitioner filed two documents on March

16, 2006, one being a premature Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit from the

Report and Recommendation (doc. #31)2

, and the other being a Motion to Stay

Appeal and Leave to Remand/Exhaust in the Supreme Az Court Pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. #32)3

. The Court has reviewed the Report and

Case 2:05-cv-01121-PGR Document 33 Filed 04/05/06 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

(...continued)

meritorious. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005) (Supreme Court

stated that "stay and abeyance should be available only in limited circumstances. Because

granting a stay effectively excuses a petitioner's failure to present his claims first to the state

courts, stay and abeyance is only appropriate when the district court determines there was good

cause for the petitioner's failure to exhaust his claims first in state court. Moreover, even if a

petitioner had good cause for that failure, the district court would abuse its discretion if it were to

grant him a stay when his unexhausted claims are plainly meritless.")

- 3 -

Recommendation de novo and finds that Magistrate Judge Anderson correctly

concluded that the § 2254 petition should be denied. 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner's Notice of Change of Judge, Lawrence

O. Anderson, Pursuant to Sections 351-364 of Title 28 of the United States Code

(doc. #15) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner's Motion to Stay Appeal and

Leave to Remand/Exhaust in the Supreme Az Court Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 (doc. #32) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Anderson's Report and

Recommendation (doc. #30) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(doc. #5) is denied and that this action is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court shall

enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 5th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01121-PGR Document 33 Filed 04/05/06 Page 3 of 3