Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01339/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01339-5/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

Isiah Romont Hill,

 Petitioner,

vs.

William White, et al.,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1339-PHX-PGR (LOA)

 

 ORDER

 

Having reviewed de novo the [Second] Report and Recommendation of

Magistrate Judge Anderson in light of the petitioner’s Written Objections to

Report/ Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Anderson (Doc. 51) and Objection

to Magistrate[‘]s Report/Recommendation Not Granting Pre-Proceeding Motions

(Doc. 52), the Court finds that the petitioner’s objections should be overruled and

that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the petitioner’s Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus, timely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as well as his

pending motions, should all be denied.

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

ground for habeas relief, the gist of which is that his grand jury indictment and all

subsequent state court proceedings are void due to being based on evidence

Case 2:10-cv-01339-PGR Document 54 Filed 05/02/11 Page 1 of 5
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 -

obtained through illegal electronic surveillance, is not cognizable as a matter of

law on federal habeas review because the record establishes that the petitioner

not only had a full and fair opportunity during his state court proceeding to litigate

this Fourth Amendment-based claim, which is all that is required, but that he

actually did litigate the issue through a motion to suppress the electronic

surveillance evidence filed by his trial counsel and a suppression hearing held by

the state court. See Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494 (1976) (United States

Supreme Court held that “where the State has provided an opportunity for full and

fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted

federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an

unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial.”); Ortiz-Sandoval v.

Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir.1996) (Court concluded that the relevant

inquiry regarding the cognizability of a Fourth Amendment claim raised in a

federal habeas proceeding “is whether petitioner had the opportunity to litigate his

claim, not whether he in fact did so or even whether the claim was correctly

decided.”)

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

petitioner’s second ground, the gist of which is that he was illegally tried because

he was mentally incompetent to stand trial notwithstanding an expert’s report that

he had been restored to mental competency prior to the trial, and of his third

ground, the gist of which is that he was never properly advised of the

constitutional rights he was giving up by pleading guilty, cannot be reached on

federal habeas review because those claims were procedurally defaulted

because the petitioner did not fairly present them to the state courts, and that his

failure to do so cannot be excused because the petitioner has not established any

Case 2:10-cv-01339-PGR Document 54 Filed 05/02/11 Page 2 of 5
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 -

cause for the procedural defaults or any prejudice arising from the alleged

constitutional errors, or that a fundamental miscarriage of justice will result from

the Court not deciding these defaulted claims.

Third, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner’s

fourth ground, the gist of which, to the extent that the Court can make any sense

of it, appears to be that the state is precluded from challenging the petitioner’s

release from custody because the Arizona Court of Appeals found his claims of

illegal electronic surveillance to be “cognizable” and the state attorney general

failed to get involved in the petitioner’s case to challenge his conviction

notwithstanding being told by the Arizona Court of Appeals to do so, does not

present a federal constitutional or statutory claim that is reviewable by this Court

through a petition for federal habeas relief.

Fourth, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner’s fifth

ground, the gist of which is that the petitioner’s counsel was ineffective as he lost

the wiretap suppression motion and that this ineffective assistance resulted in the

petitioner involuntarily pleading guilty and being convicted based on illegally

obtained evidence, must be denied on its merits because the state court’s finding

that there was no ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland test was

neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal

law as determined by the Supreme Court. 

Also pending before the Court is the petitioner’s appeal (Doc. 48) of 

Magistrate Judge Anderson’s order (Doc. 46) denying the petitioner’s Motion

Request “Disqualification of Recusal” of Magistrate [pursuant to] 28 USC §§

144/155 (Doc. 44). The Court finds that the petitioner’s appeal should be denied

because the Magistrate Judge’s decision denying the recusal motion was neither

Case 2:10-cv-01339-PGR Document 54 Filed 05/02/11 Page 3 of 5
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

 The Court notes that the recusal issue is also now moot because

Magistrate Judge Anderson, having issued his Report and Recommendation, has

no further duties to perform in this action

- 4 -

clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.1

 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The petitioner’s

motion is not predicated on any alleged bias or prejudice on Magistrate Judge

Anderson’s part stemming from any extrajudicial source; rather, it is based on the

Magistrate Judge’s performance while presiding over matters in this action, i.e.

his alleged failure to rule on the plaintiff’s motions and issue a Report and

Recommendation as fast as the petitioner thinks he should have. There is no

basis for recusal because nothing in the petitioner’s motion establishes that a

reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the

Magistrate Judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned by his conduct in

this action.

Also pending is the petitioner’s appeal (Doc. 50) of the Magistrate Judge

Anderson’s order (Doc. 43) denying various motions filed by the petitioner related

to the sufficiency of the state’s answer to his habeas petition. The Court finds

that the appeal should be denied because the Magistrate Judge’s decision to

address the issues raised in the petitioner’s motions through the Report and

Recommendation, rather than directly resolving the merits of the motions

themselves, was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

Therefore,

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

(Doc. 45) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Motion for Default

Judgement (Doc. 33), Notice Motion (Doc. 34), Motion for Summary Judgment

Case 2:10-cv-01339-PGR Document 54 Filed 05/02/11 Page 4 of 5
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 petitioner has also filed a Legend Emergency Motion Under Circuit

Rule 27-3 [&] 27-12 (Doc. 42) which is captioned as being directed to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. To the extent that the motion is directed to this Court, it

is denied.

- 5 -

(Doc. 35), First Amended Motion for Summary Judgement (Doc. 37), Second

Notice Motion (Doc. 38), Second Amended Motion for Summary Judgement

(Doc. 39), Motion for Specific Action/Request to Expedite Proceeding (Doc. 49),

and Request [to] Expedite Release Order (Doc. 53) are all denied.2

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 (as amended)

is denied and that this action is dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue

and that the petitioner shall not be allowed to appeal in forma pauperis because

the dismissal of the habeas petition is justified in part by a plain procedural bar

and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable, and because

the petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.

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

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 2nd day of May, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01339-PGR Document 54 Filed 05/02/11 Page 5 of 5