Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02352/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02352-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

WESTLEY VANCE HASKINS,

Petitioner, 

vs.

DORA SCHRIRO, Director, Arizona

Department of Corrections,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 05-2352-PHX MHM (JM)

ORDER

Currently before the Court are Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Habeas Corpus

Proceedings Pending Appeal (Dkt. #41) and Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Marshall’s

accompanying Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #56). 

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A district court must review the legal analysis in a Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In addition, a district court

must review the factual analysis in the Report and Recommendation de novo for those

facts to which objections are filed. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). “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 2:05-cv-02352-MHM-JR Document 64 Filed 02/11/09 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

27

28

- 2 -

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner Westley Haskins filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 on August 4, 2005. (Dkt. #1). The matter was referred to Magistrate

Judge Jacqueline Marshall for Report and Recommendation on June 21, 2006. (Dkt. #3). 

On May 5, 2008, following Respondent’s Answer (Dkt. #18) and Petitioner’s Motion to

Conduct Limited Discovery (Dkt. #26), Magistrate Judge Marshall filed her Report and

Recommendation that the Court deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. #35). 

Petitioner then filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation, raising new

allegations of a Brady violation for failure to disclose felony convictions of state

witnesses and factual innocence with respect to his state conviction on one count of child

abuse. (Dkt. #37). In addition, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Procedural Order to

authorize Petitioner to use his personal typewriter to prepare documents with respect to

this litigation due to his diagnosis of osteoarthritis and degenerative joint disease (Dkt.

#36). Petitioner also filed a Motion to Stay Habeas Corpus Proceedings Pending Appeal

(Dkt. #41). 

On September 16, 2008, the Court adopted Magistrate Judge Marshall’s Report

and Recommendation in part, denying both Petitioner’s Motion to Conduct Limited

Discovery and Petitioner’s due process claim with respect to the Arizona Court of

Appeal’s refusal to remand, and granting Petitioner’s unopposed Motion for a Procedural

Order. (Dkt. #44). The Court withheld ruling on the remainder of Judge Marshall’s

Report and Recommendation and directed Respondents to address Petitioner’s newlyraised allegations, including whether those allegations are sufficient to warrant granting

Petitioner’s Motion to Stay. (Id.). The Court requested a supplemental Report and

Recommendation from Judge Marshall on the merits of Petitioner’s Motion to Stay. (Id.).

On September 19, 2008, Respondents requested that the Court stay the Order

granting Petitioner’s Motion for Procedural Order to use his personal typewriter pending

an Objection by the Arizona Department of Corrections. (Dkt. #45). The Court granted

that Motion on September 26, 2008. (Dkt. #47). The Department of Corrections filed

Case 2:05-cv-02352-MHM-JR Document 64 Filed 02/11/09 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

27

28

- 3 -

their Objection on October 27, 2008. (Dkt. #48). That issue remains pending before the

Court.

Respondents filed their response to Petitioner’s newly-raised allegations of factual

innocence and a Brady violation on October 31, 2008. (Dkt. #49). On December 5,

2008, Petitioner filed a Reply to that Response, a second Motion to Stay pending

adjudication of Petitioner’s unexhausted claims in state court, and a Reply to the

Department of Correction’s Objection to Petitioner’s Motion for Procedural Order. (Dkt.

#s 52-54).

After reviewing Respondents’ Response to Petitioner’s newly-raised allegations,

the Court ordered Respondents to file a supplement brief addressing whether the Court

should allow Petitioner to amend his Petition to state his alleged Brady violation as a freestanding claim and/or state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to

investigate the presence of drugs in Petitioner’s daughter’s system. (Dkt. #55). The

Court also directed Respondents to address whether Petitioner would be entitled to a stay

to present his claims to the state courts per Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). 

Respondents filed their supplemental response on January 12, 2009 (Dkt. #59), and

Petitioner filed a Reply on January 23, 2009 (Dkt. #62).

On December 12, 2008, Magistrate Judge Marshall issued a Report and

Recommendation that the Court deny Petitioner’s original Motion to Stay Habeas Corpus

Proceedings Pending Appeal. (Dkt. #41). Petitioner filed an Objection on January 21,

2009. (Dkt. #60). Then, on January 23, 2009, Petitioner filed a Motion to Amend Writ of

Habeas Corpus. (Dkt. #61). 

III. DISCUSSION

The instant Order addresses only Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Habeas Corpus

Proceedings (Dkt. #41) and Magistrate Judge Marshall’s Report and Recommendation

addressing that Motion (Dkt. #56).

In his Motion to Stay, Petitioner requests that his case be stayed so that his new

counsel can “go back into State court to exhaust the factual innocence issues and raise

Case 2:05-cv-02352-MHM-JR Document 64 Filed 02/11/09 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

27

28

- 4 -

Federal Constitutional arguments . . . . [because] Federal courts cannot consider habeas

petitions containing both exhausted and/or unexhausted claims.” (Dkt. #41, p.2). In

support of that contention, Petitioner cites the Court to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269

(2005), which holds that, in limited circumstances, a federal district court has the

discretion to stay a mixed habeas petition containing exhausted and unexhausted claims to

allow the petitioner to present his unexhausted claims to the state court in the first

instance, and then return to federal court for review of his perfected petition. In her

Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Marshall recommends that the Court

deny the Motion to Stay because “Petitioner has not fully identified the purportedly

unexhausted claim he seeks to raise in state court and, presuming it is one of factual

innocence, it was not included in his pending Petition. . . . Moreover, without any specific

information about the substance of the claim, the Court could not fairly evaluate it under

the Rhines criteria. As such, there is no basis for a stay and abey order.” (Dkt. #56, p.2). 

In his Objection to the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner reasserts his

allegations that, among other things, he has discovered new evidence of factual innocence

with respect to his conviction of one count of child abuse (Count 8), and that Petitioner’s

counsel were ineffective for not discovering such evidence. (Dkt. #60, pp. 2-3). 

Petitioner also states that he has found newly discovered evidence showing factual

innocence with respect to his conviction for manufacture of dangerous drugs (Count 2). 

(Id., pp. 2-3). Petitioner then reiterates the position he took in his Motion that the Court

should stay so that Petitioner can pursue his unexhausted claims in state court. (Id., p.5). 

However, Petitioner fails to address the fact that these claims were not included in his

original Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Rule 2(c)(1) of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases in the United States District Courts clearly states that a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner.” As

such, the Court must deny Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Pending Appeal.

Nonetheless, the Court notes that Petitioner is not prejudiced by the denial of his

original Motion to Stay. Still pending are Petitioner’s second Motion to Stay, which also

Case 2:05-cv-02352-MHM-JR Document 64 Filed 02/11/09 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

27

28

- 5 -

requests that the Court stay the current habeas action so that Petitioner can pursue

unexhausted claims in state court (Dkt. #53), as well as Petitioner’s Motion to Amend his

Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. #61). Therefore, when determining whether to allow

Petitioner to amend his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Court will also address

Petitioner’s second Motion to Stay and decide whether a stay is appropriate at that time.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (Dkt. #56) on Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Habeas Corpus Proceedings

Pending Appeal (Dkt. #41). Petitioner’s Motion (Dkt. #41) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED requesting that U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline

Marshall issue a Report and Recommendation on the issues and motions that remain

pending in this action: (1) the Arizona Department of Corrections’s Objection to the

Court’s granting Petitioner’s Motion for a Procedural Order (Dkt. #s 36, 44, 48), (2)

Petitioner’s Motion to Stay (Dkt. #s 52, 55, 59, 62), and (3) Petitioner’s Motion to Amend

Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. #61). The Court also requests that Judge Marshall report on

whether the Court’s decision to withhold ruling in part on her initial Report and

Recommendation (Dkt. #44) should be deemed moot as a result of Petitioner’s Motion to

Amend.

DATED this 10th day of February, 2009.

Case 2:05-cv-02352-MHM-JR Document 64 Filed 02/11/09 Page 5 of 5