Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01202/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01202-1/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NOT FOR PUBLICATION 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 

Jose Abel Cabrera-Somosa,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-01202-PHX-SRB

ORDER 

 On June 2, 2014 Petitioner, Jose Abel Cabrara-Somosa, filed a Petition under 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody raising two 

grounds for relief. Petitioner argues he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to 

ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel because they failed to raise certain 

sentencing issues on appeal. He also argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel 

on appeal because his appellate counsel failed to raise an issue concerning his out-ofcourt identification. Respondents filed a Limited Answer on September 2, 2014 asserting 

that Petitioner’s claims are procedurally defaulted. Petitioner filed a Limited Reply to the 

Limited Answer on September 24, 2014. 

 On October 29, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued her Report and 

Recommendation in which she concluded that Petitioner’s claims are procedurally 

defaulted and recommended that the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

Petitioner filed a timely objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 

on November 10, 2014. 

 Petitioner’s Objections address at length the limits placed on Arizona prisoners for 

Case 2:14-cv-01202-SRB Document 25 Filed 12/18/14 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 

access to the prison law library and the time limitations that Arizona courts have 

established for post-conviction relief proceedings. These arguments do not change the 

fact that Petitioner has procedurally defaulted on the claims raised in this federal habeas 

petition by failing to fairly present them to the Arizona Court of Appeals. As noted by the 

Magistrate Judge, the Petition for Review of the denial of the Petition for Post-Conviction 

Relief filed in the Arizona Court of Appeals consisted entirely of pages from his PostConviction Relief petition with only a hand written first page that included the caption 

and a hand written final page that consisted of a certificate of mailing. Importantly, the 

Arizona Court of Appeals denied review because Petitioner failed to file the procedural 

requirements for a Petition for Review. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that 

because Petitioner failed to comply with the state’s procedural requirements and thus, 

failed to fairly present his claims to the Arizona Court of Appeals, his claims are now 

procedurally barred from federal habeas review. The alleged deficiencies in the Arizona 

rules and in the availability of prison law libraries do not show cause and prejudice to 

excuse this procedural default and there is no argument that there was a fundamental 

miscarriage of justice. 

 IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court. (Doc. 22) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

(Doc. 1) 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:14-cv-01202-SRB Document 25 Filed 12/18/14 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 

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

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because dismissal of the Petitioner is justified by a 

plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. 

 Dated this 18th day of December, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-01202-SRB Document 25 Filed 12/18/14 Page 3 of 3