Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01083/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01083-2/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

James Thurman Montgomery,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 06-1083-PHX-MHM (JCG)

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a pro se Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc.

1). The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Guerin, who has

issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court enter an Order

dismissing the Petition with prejudice (Doc. 22). Plaintiff has not filed written objections to

the Report and Recommendation. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court must review the legal analysis in the Report and Recommendation de novo.

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court must review the factual analysis in the Report and

Recommendation de novo for those facts to which objections are filed. "Failure to object to

a magistrate judge's recommendation waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact."

Jones v. Wood, 207 F.3d 557, 562 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Case 2:06-cv-01083-MHM Document 23 Filed 04/30/07 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

- 2 -

DISCUSSION

In his Habeas Petition, Petitioner has asserted two grounds for relief. Petitioner claims

that his conviction is unconstitutional because he was convicted of disorderly conduct, a

charge for which he was not indicted. Petitioner further claims that he received ineffective

assistance of counsel at sentencing because his counsel failed to object to the length of

Petitioner's sentence. The Magistrate Judge has recommended that the instant Petition be

dismissed with prejudice because Petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies for

either claim before bringing the instant Habeas Petition. 

Ordinarily, before a federal court will consider the merits of a habeas petition, the

petitioner must exhaust the remedies available to him in state court. 28 U.S.C. §

2254(b)(1)(A); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971). Habeas petition claims may be

precluded from federal review on exhaustion grounds in either of two ways. First a claim

may be procedurally defaulted in federal court if it was actually raised in state court but

found by that court to be defaulted on state procedural grounds. See Coleman v. Thompson,

501 U.S. 722, 729-30 (1991). Second, the claim may be procedurally defaulted in federal

court if the petitioner failed to present the claim in a necessary state court and "the court to

which the petitioner would be required to present his claims in order to meet the exhaustion

requirement would now find the claims procedurally barred." Id. at 735 n.1. If a petitioner

has procedurally defaulted a claim in state court, a federal court will not review the claim

unless the petitioner shows "cause and prejudice" for the failure to present the constitutional

issue to the state court, or makes a colorable showing of actual innocence. See Gray v.

Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162 (1996); Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 337 (1992); Murray

v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 485 (1986).

Here, Petitioner failed to exhaust his claims in state court. Petitioner did not assert

in state court either of the arguments he has asserted in the instant Habeas Petition. Nor did

Petitioner raise either argument in his direct appeal in state court. Finally, Petitioner failed

to file a Rule 32 petition in state court and Petitioner is now barred from asserting these

Case 2:06-cv-01083-MHM Document 23 Filed 04/30/07 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 -

claims in state court. Thus, Petitioner's Habeas Corpus case is dismissed with prejudice due

to his failure to exhaust in state court the claims alleged in the Habeas Petition here. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 22) in its entirety. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is

dismissed with prejudice.

DATED this 27th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01083-MHM Document 23 Filed 04/30/07 Page 3 of 3