Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00361/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00361-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

William Elvis Holland,

 Petitioner,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

 Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-15-00361-PHX-PGR (DKD)

 ORDER

 

 

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Duncan’s Report and

Recommendation, filed on December 16, 2015. After the petitioner’s copy of the

Report and Recommendation was returned to the Court as undeliverable, the Court

required the respondents to inform the Court of the petitioner’s current location,

notwithstanding the petitioner’s failure to do so as required, because it appeared that

the petitioner had been recently moved to a different Department of Corrections

facility. Having received that new address from the respondents, the Court had the

Clerk of the Court mail another copy of the Report and Recommendation to the

petitioner, which the Clerk did on March 1, 2016. That order, which was not returned

to the Court as undeliverable, gave the petitioner a new deadline of April 4, 2016 in

which to file his objections to the Report and Recommendation. To date, the 

Case 2:15-cv-00361-PGR Document 16 Filed 05/17/16 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

- 2 -

petitioner has not responded to the Report and Recommendation in any manner.

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo notwithstanding

that no objection to it has been filed any party, the Court finds that the Magistrate

Judge correctly determined that the petitioner’s Amended Petition for a Writ of

Habeas Corpus should be dismissed with prejudice.

First, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner’s claims

referring to the Alaska testimony, the coached testimony, and the untimely witness

testimony are all procedurally defaulted and that the petitioner has failed to show any

cause or actual prejudice to excuse the defaults, nor has he presented any evidence

showing that a miscarriage of justice would result from the Court’s decision not to

review the merits of those claims.

Second, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner’s two

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are meritless. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 11) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s First Amended Petition Under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc.5)

is denied and that this action is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall be issued

and that the petitioner is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis because dismissal

of the amended petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists

would not find the procedural ruling debatable, and because the petitioner has not

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:15-cv-00361-PGR Document 16 Filed 05/17/16 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

- 3 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 16th day of May, 2016.

Case 2:15-cv-00361-PGR Document 16 Filed 05/17/16 Page 3 of 3