Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08052/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08052-1/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

Alex Eishoo, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Charles L. Ryan, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV11-8052-PCT-NVW

ORDER

and 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

AND IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate

Judge James F. Metcalf (Doc. 17) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that the Petition be

denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had

fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 27 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)).

Petitioner filed objections on December 28, 2011. (Doc. 18.) 

The court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and

Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the

court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and

Recommendation to which specific objections are made). With the clarification stated

below, the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's determinations, accepts the recommended

decision within the meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner's

objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”).

Case 3:11-cv-08052-NVW Document 19 Filed 12/30/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Because Petitioner did seek review in the Arizona Supreme Court, the Magistrate

Judge correctly notes that it does not affect the outcome of this case whether he was required

to. However, this court does not presume that Petitioner needed to seek such review but

rather holds that he did not need to in order have federal habeas corpus review of his life

sentence. Crowell v. Knowles, 483 F.Supp.2d 925 (D. Ariz. 2007).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge (Doc. 17) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The Clerk

shall terminate this action.

Having considered the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability from the order

denying Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Court FINDS: Certificate of

Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are Denied. Petitioner has

not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right on some claims and is

barred by plain procedural bar on other claims and jurists of reason would not find the

procedural ruling debatable.

DATED this 29th day of December, 2011.

Case 3:11-cv-08052-NVW Document 19 Filed 12/30/11 Page 2 of 2