Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02606/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02606-1/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 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Ulysses Herbert Grant, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-12-02606-PHX-PGR

ORDER 

 Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge 

James F. Metcalf (Doc. 31) in light of Petitioner’s Objections contained in his Reply 

From Petitioner to Report & Recommendation on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

(Doc. 32), the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that petitioner’s 

habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be denied, and rejects all of 

petitioner’s objections to the contrary. 

 In his Ground One, petitioner alleges prosecutorial misconduct based on the 

prosecution’s failure to disclose Brady material. The Court agrees with the Magistrate 

Judge’s conclusions regarding the first photo line-up and the purported second photolineup. Petitioner’s claim that the state failed to timely disclose the victim’s prior 

knowledge of, and contact with, the individual suspected of taking the car lacks merit. 

Case 2:12-cv-02606-PGR Document 35 Filed 09/30/14 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

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 

The arresting officer’s initial report included information showing that the victim had 

previous contacts with the suspect, and that the victim provided a physical description of 

the suspect to law enforcement. Petitioner does not deny that this initial report – which 

was attached to petitioner’s pro per opening brief on direct appeal – was timely disclosed 

by the state. 

 In his Ground Two, petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel for failing 

to request a Dessureault Hearing and a Donald Hearing. The Court agrees with the 

Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the Donald Hearing ineffective assistance claim was 

not exhausted, is now procedurally defaulted, and that petitioner has failed to establish 

cause to excuse his procedural default. The Court also agrees with the Magistrate 

Judge’s conclusion on the merits of the Dessureault Hearing ineffective assistance claim. 

The Court has reviewed but declines to address claims raised by petitioner in his 

objection that were not raised in his habeas petition, such as his claim that his counsel 

was ineffective for failing to request a continuance to produce an alibi witness and for 

failing to call as witnesses the two officers mentioned in the supplemental police report 

regarding the photo-lineup. See Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (district 

court is not required to consider claims raised for the first time in a party’s objection to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation). 

 Further, petitioner’s mere assertion in his petition of “newly discovered evidence” 

that the victim “is a known drug user with priors that the State and defense counsel 

[k]new or should have known about,” is insufficient to warrant habeas relief. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2); Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1401 (2011) (prohibiting 

Case 2:12-cv-02606-PGR Document 35 Filed 09/30/14 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

consideration of new evidence in addressing issues under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)); see 

also Swan v. Peterson, 6 F.3d 1373, 1384 (9th Cir. 1993) (newly discovered evidence is 

ground for federal habeas relief only when it bears on the constitutionality of a 

petitioner’s conviction and probably would have produced an acquittal). 

 In his Ground Three, petitioner alleges that the trial court abused its discretion in 

allowing the victim to testify about the photo-lineup. The Court agrees with the 

Magistrate Judge’s conclusion on the merits of this claim. 

 In his Ground Four, petitioner alleges that his rights under the Fifth Amendment 

and Miranda were violated when an officer testified regarding petitioner’s invocation of 

his right to remain silent. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that 

the officer did testify regarding petitioner’s silence, and that this testimony violated 

petitioner’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The Court also agrees with the 

Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that petitioner did not, however, demonstrate prejudice in 

light of the limited references to petitioner’s silence, and the strong and convincing 

evidence presented at trial of petitioner’s guilt. Accordingly, 

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

31) 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 that this action is 

dismissed. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 

 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 the petitioner 

Case 2:12-cv-02606-PGR Document 35 Filed 09/30/14 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in that he has 

failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the Court’s assessment of his 

constitutional claims to be debatable or wrong. 

 Dated this 30th day of September, 2014. 

Case 2:12-cv-02606-PGR Document 35 Filed 09/30/14 Page 4 of 4