Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02560/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02560-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Bobby Rydell Lee, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2560-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On April 10, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc.

#24) recommending that the Petition in this case be denied with respect to grounds 2, 3, and

4. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that this Court stay this case with respect to

ground 1 to permit Petitioner to return to state court to exhaust his remedies in state court.

Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts

the R&R except as indicated below. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding

that district courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not

the subject of an objection” (emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not

otherwise” (emphasis in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226

(D. Ariz. 2003).

Case 2:04-cv-02560-JAT Document 27 Filed 05/10/07 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

 Petitioner's direct appeal became final 90 days after March 31, 2000, the date the

Arizona Supreme Court issued its decision denying review of Petitioner's conviction. R&R

at 2; see also Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1158-59 (9th Cir 1999). Crawford was decided

March 8, 2004, well after Petitioner's conviction became final on direct appeal.

- 2 -

Typically, when neither party files objections, this Court does not review the R&R

substantively. However, in this case, the Court noted that the R&R recommends that this

Court order that this case be stayed and Petitioner advised that he should return to state court

to pursue an unexhausted claim. The stay recommendation was based on a claim under

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). The Court found this recommendation curious

in the habeas context because the Supreme Court has held that Crawford is not available in

a collateral attack of a conviction. Whorton v. Bockting, 127 S.Ct. 1173,1184 (2007).

In further reviewing the R&R, the Court notes that the R&R relies on Bockting v.

Bayer, 399 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2005) for the proposition that Crawford is available in a

collateral attack of a conviction. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision

reported at 399 F.3d 1010 is the very case the Supreme Court reversed to find Crawford not

retroactive. Whorton, 127 S.Ct. at 1184. 

Based on the fact that Bockting v. Bayer is not good law, this Court will not send

Petitioner on a fruitless mission to return to state court to attempt to exhaust a claim under

Crawford.1

 Therefore, the Court will not accept the R&R with respect to this

recommendation. As a result,

IT IS ORDERED that, there being no objections, the R&R (Doc. #24) is accepted

with respect to the recommendation that grounds 2, 3, and 4 be denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. #24) is rejected as to ground 1

because the recommendation would send Petitioner on a pointless endeavor to attempt to

exhaust a precluded claim in state court. Further, as to the merits of ground 1, because

Crawford is not applicable to cases on collateral attack, relief on ground 1 is also denied. 

Case 2:04-cv-02560-JAT Document 27 Filed 05/10/07 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, the Court having now found all grounds in the

habeas petition should be denied, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied in its

entirety and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 9th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02560-JAT Document 27 Filed 05/10/07 Page 3 of 3