Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00583/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00583-1/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 

Roy Bernard Engebretson, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Attorney General of the State of Arizona, et 

al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-11-00583-TUC-JGZ (JR)

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States 

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau that recommends denying Petitioner’s habeas 

petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. (Doc. 24.) As thoroughly explained by 

Magistrate Judge Rateau, Petitioner is not entitled to relief as his petition is without merit. 

As Petitioner’s objections do not undermine the analysis and proper conclusion reached 

by Magistrate Judge Rateau, Petitioner’s objections are rejected and the Report and 

Recommendation is adopted.1

 Similarly, Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing 

fails to satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2), and will be denied. 

Before Petitioner can appeal this Court's judgment, a certificate of appealability must 

issue. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 22(b) requires the district court that rendered a judgment denying the petition 

 

1

 The Court notes that the Report initially “disagreed” with the Arizona Court of 

Appeals as to whether Petitioner’s Ground One and Ground Two claims were 

procedurally defaulted but then later found them to be defaulted. (Doc. 24, pp. 6, 11, 12.) This Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s final analysis that the claims are procedurally defaulted. 

Case 4:11-cv-00583-JGZ Document 34 Filed 06/25/14 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 to "either issue a certificate of appealability or state 

why a certificate should not issue." Additionally, 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2) provides that a 

certificate may issue "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial 

of a constitutional right." In the certificate, the court must indicate which specific issues 

satisfy this showing. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(3). A substantial showing is made when 

the resolution of an issue of appeal is debatable among reasonable jurists, if courts could 

resolve the issues differently, or if the issue deserves further proceedings. See Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Upon review of the record in light of the 

standards for granting a certificate of appealability, the Court concludes that a certificate 

shall not issue as the resolution of the petition is not debatable among reasonable jurists 

and does not deserve further proceedings. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 24) is accepted and adopted; 

(2) Petitioner’s §2254 Amended Petition (Doc. 1) is denied and this case is dismissed 

with prejudice; 

(3) Petitioner’s Request for an Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 25) is denied; 

(4) A Certificate of Appealability is denied and shall not issue; and 

(5) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this 

matter. 

 Dated this 25th day of June, 2014. 

Case 4:11-cv-00583-JGZ Document 34 Filed 06/25/14 Page 2 of 2