Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00017/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00017-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Gerard Schottenbauer,

Petitioner,

v.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-15-017-TUC-DCB

ORDER

This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and the local rules of practice of this

Court for a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. Before the Court is the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16), which recommends

that the Petition be denied and dismissed. The Petitioner filed

Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 21.) 

SUMMARY

Petitioner was convicted in Pima County Superior Court, case #CR47264, of two counts of child molestation and one count of sexual conduct

with a minor under the age of fourteen. He was sentenced to consecutive

prison terms totaling 39 years’ imprisonment. In his Petition, Petitioner

names Charles Ryan as Respondent and the Arizona Attorney General as an

Additional Respondent Petitioner raises four grounds for relief. In

Ground One, Petitioner alleges he was denied his Fourteenth Amendment

Case 4:15-cv-00017-DCB Document 22 Filed 10/30/15 Page 1 of 5
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 2

right to due process because the trial court refused to suppress his

allegedly involuntary confession. In Grounds Two, Three, and Four, he

asserts that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective

assistance of counsel.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When objection is made to the findings and recommendation of a

magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review.

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

OBJECTIONS

Primarily, Petitioner objects to the R&R because the Magistrate

Judge did not give his evidence and allegations of innocence the

requisite weight and consideration. On the contrary, the R&R

painstakingly reviewed the allegations of innocence put forth by

Petitioner and point-by-point addressed each one. McQuiggin v. Perkins,

133 S.Ct. 1924 (2013). 

Unqualifiedly, Petitioner failed to demonstrate diligence required

to equitably toll the period of filing the habeas petition: 

On February 11, 1997, Schottenbauer filed his first notice

of post-conviction relief. (Doc. 12-3, p. 26) The trial

court summarily dismissed the petition on June 26, 1997.

(Doc. 12- 4, p. 42) Schottenbauer appealed raising the claim

that his sentence was cruel and unusual punishment. (Doc.

12-4, pp. 44-47) He also filed an addendum pro se in which

he argued three of the state’s witnesses were mentally

unstable. (Doc. 12-4, pp. 12-28) The Arizona Court of

Appeals granted review but denied relief on April 30, 1998.

(Doc. 12-5, p. 16) The court noted that Schottenbauer’s

claims against the state’s witnesses were based on

information he had well before trial. (Doc. 12-5, p. 17)

More than eleven years later, on February 18, 2010,

Schottenbauer filed a second notice of post-conviction

relief. (Doc. 12-5, p. 30) He argued he uncovered “newly

discovered facts” in case reports and victim interview

transcripts that would have constituted reasonable doubt had

they been raised at trial. (Doc. 12-5, p. 31) He further

argued he had “new evidence” from his son, Christopher, that

Case 4:15-cv-00017-DCB Document 22 Filed 10/30/15 Page 2 of 5
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

the victim lied so she could live with her mother and that

Elizabeth Schottenbauer colluded with the detectives to

coerce the defendant’s confession. (Doc. 12-5, p. 31) The

trial court summarily dismissed the notice on March 5, 2010

because Schottenbauer “raise[d] no new issue, legal or

factual, that could not have been addressed through his

first Petition for Post-Conviction Relief.” (Doc. 12-5, p.

30)

(R&R at 2.)

On January 15, 2015, Schottenbauer filed the pending petition for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1) His petition

consists of four claims, which raise in turn the arguments he made in his

direct appeal and his first, second, and third post-conviction relief

proceedings. Id. He claims (1) the trial court should have suppressed his

involuntary confession, (2) trial counsel was ineffective for (a) failing

to call his friends, the Van Dykes, to testify, (b) failing to

investigate the backgrounds of the state’s witnesses, and (c) failing to

investigate and argue the totality of the circumstances surrounding the

false allegations and his coerced confession, (3) trial counsel was

ineffective for (a) failing to argue that his sister, Elizabeth, was a

state actor when she coerced him into confessing, (b) failing to call his

friends, the Van Dykes, to testify, and (c) failing to call a brain

expert to testify about his motorcycle injury, and (4) trial counsel was

ineffective for failing to evaluate properly the state’s plea offer.Id.

Here, there is ample evidence of guilt apart from the questionable

evidence presented by Petitioner: At trial, the victim related in detail

the abuse that occurred. (Doc. 12-2, p. 16). She remembered what she had

been wearing, described the color and pattern of the bed sheets, and gave

a detailed timeline of the abuse that occurred. Id. Schottenbauer’s

videotaped confession corroborated her testimony. He admitted to the

Case 4:15-cv-00017-DCB Document 22 Filed 10/30/15 Page 3 of 5
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 4

abuse, said “he was very sorry,” and reported “I don’t even feel like I

deserve to be alive right now.” (Doc. 12-2, pp. 10, 11, 15) A reasonable

juror could have believed the victim’s testimony and concluded

Schottenbauer’s videotaped confession was sincere. See (Doc. 12-2, p. 29)

(“[E]very indication is that appellant was remorseful and that he was

doing what his sister had told him to do, that is to tell the truth.”).

The R&R concluded that Schottenbauer has not presented “evidence

of innocence so strong that a court cannot have confidence in the outcome

of [his] trial.” See Stewart v. Cate, 757 F.3d 929, 937-938 (9th Cir.

2014). His allegation of “actual innocence” is insufficient to excuse his

failure to file a timely petition.

This Court absolutely agrees with the R&R. The Schlup v. Delo, 513

U.S. 298 (1995) standard is demanding. The gateway should open only when

a petition presents “evidence of innocence so strong that a court cannot

have confidence in the outcome of the trial unless the court is also

satisfied that the trial was free of nonharmless constitutional error.”

Id. at 316.

The Motion for Appointment of Counsel will also be denied because

Petitioner has more than adequately pursued this action without the need

for legal counsel. “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an

evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the

ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

complexity of the issues involved. Neither of these factors is

dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.”

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, after conducting a de novo review of the record,

Case 4:15-cv-00017-DCB Document 22 Filed 10/30/15 Page 4 of 5
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 5

IT IS ORDERED that the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 16) in its entirety. The Objections (Doc.21) raised by the

Petitioner are OVERRULED. The Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 20)

is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(Doc. No. 1) is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

Final Judgment to enter separately by the Clerk’s Office. A Certificate

of Appealability is likewise DENIED. This action is closed.

DATED this 28th day of October, 2015.

Case 4:15-cv-00017-DCB Document 22 Filed 10/30/15 Page 5 of 5