Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01469/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01469-1/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

1

 Charles L. Ryan, the current director of the Arizona Department of

Corrections, is substituted as a respondent pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d) in

place of former director Dora B. Schriro.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Everardo Lopez, Jr., )

)

Petitioner, ) NO. CV-08-1469-PHX-PGR (MHB)

)

vs. )

) ORDER

Charles L. Ryan1, et al., )

)

 Respondents. )

 )

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Burns in light of the petitioner’s Objection to Report and Recommendation

(doc. #17), the Court finds that the objections should be overruled and that the

petitioner’s habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be denied.

First, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the merits of

Grounds Two, Three, Four, and Five of the § 2254 petition cannot be reached

because the petitioner procedurally defaulted as to those grounds and has not

established either cause for his failure to properly raise those claims in state court

Case 2:08-cv-01469-PGR Document 18 Filed 10/14/09 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

 The fact that the petitioner included for the first time in his Objection to

Report and Recommendation a copy of the search warrant at issue in Ground

Seven (c) does not change the Court’s acceptance of the Magistrate Judge’s

conclusion regarding that ground. The petitioner still has not established any

prejudice stemming from his trial counsel’s failure to move to suppress the

evidence seized under the allegedly invalid warrant because he has not

established that any such motion would have been successful.

- 2 -

or actual prejudice stemming from his failure to do so, nor has he demonstrated

that a miscarriage of justice would result if those issues are not addressed on

their merits.

Second, the Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Ground One

must be denied on its merits because the prosecution witnesses’ sporadic

references to a drug organization did not render the petitioner’s trial

fundamentally unfair given the trial judge’s curative instruction to the jury.

Third, the Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Ground Six

must be denied on its merits because the Portillo reasonable doubt instruction

given by the trial court does not violate any clearly established Supreme Court

authority.

Fourth, the Court further agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Ground

Seven must be denied on its merits in its entirety because the state courts’

rejection of the petitioner’s various ineffective assistance of counsel claims

included in Ground Seven did not amount to an unreasonable application of

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).2

 Therefore,

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

(doc. #16) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied and

Case 2:08-cv-01469-PGR Document 18 Filed 10/14/09 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 -

that this action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 10th day of October, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01469-PGR Document 18 Filed 10/14/09 Page 3 of 3