Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-00733/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-00733-1/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 

Kamondai Richard Young,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Arizona, State of, et al. 

Respondent.

No. CV-14-00733-TUC-RCC (CRP)

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Pyle’s Report and Recommendation 

(“R & R”) (Doc. 36) regarding Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21) and Petitioner’s 

Objections thereto (Doc. 41); Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of [Petitioner’s] 

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 40); Petitioner’s Motion for a Stay of Proceedings (Doc. 39); 

and Petitioner’s Request to Attach [a] Letter [to] Motion to Dismiss Recommendation re: 

41, Objection to Report and Recommendation (Doc.42). 

 This Court grants Petitioner’s Motion to Attach [a] Letter ...[to Petitioner’s] 

Objections [to the R&R] (Doc. 42), but concludes that none of the supplemental 

objections in Petitioner’s letter (Doc. 40) alter the Court’s position regarding Magistrate 

Judge Pyle’s R&R and or its decision regarding Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss. For the 

following reasons, and over all of Petitioner’s objections (Docs 41 & 40), this Court 

accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Pyle’s R & R (Doc. 36) as the findings of fact and 

conclusions of law of this Court. Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21) is denied. 

Moreover, Petitioner’s Motion for a Stay of Proceedings (Doc. 39) is denied as moot. 

Case 4:14-cv-00733-RCC Document 56 Filed 03/10/16 Page 1 of 7
- 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 

I. Background 

A. Procedural History 

 The following facts are supported by the record: 

 On January 21, 2014 Petitioner Kamondai Young filed this action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §2254. Doc. 1. Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis. In his First Amended Petition Petitioner raises three grounds for relief: (1) that 

his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights were violated when the trial court permitted 

Deputy Ortiz to testify about an out-of-court conversation involving Elizabeth Freiya; (2) 

that the trial court improperly instructed and coerced the jury to continue deliberations 

after the jury foreperson informed the Court that the jury was unable to reach a verdict on 

one of the Counts Petitioner faced in his underlying Cochise County Superior Court 

Case; and (3) that evidence discovered after trial would have altered the verdict and/or 

sentence he received in the underlying criminal matter. Doc. 8. 

 On October 14, 2014, this Court ordered Charles Ryan and the Arizona Attorney 

General to respond to Petitioner’s First Amended Petition within 40 days of receipt of 

service. Doc 9. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Pyle for further proceedings 

pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. Service on 

the Respondents was executed on October 20, 2014 and October 21, 2014. Docs. 10, 11. 

 Respondents filed a timely, limited answer on November 17, 2014 requesting 

Petitioner’s claims be denied as untimely and further requesting dismissal with prejudice. 

Doc. 13. Respondents also sought leave to file a supplemental answer addressing the 

merits of the Petition in the event the Court reject[ed] their limited affirmative defenses. 

Id. Petitioner requested an extension of time to file a reply on December 18, 2014 (prior 

to the expiration of his time to reply) citing obstacles he was encountering while 

attempting to research and draft his reply. Judge Pyle, finding good cause for Petitioner’s 

request, extended his time to file a reply until January 20, 2015. Doc. 15. Petitioner did 

file a pleading on the January 20, 2015 deadline, however it was not a reply. (Doc. 16). 

 According to Petitioner’s pleading of January 20, 2015, he had been transferred to 

Case 4:14-cv-00733-RCC Document 56 Filed 03/10/16 Page 2 of 7
- 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 

Yuma County Detention Center on December 31, 2014 in connection with new charges 

in an unrelated matter. Doc. 16. Petitioner asserted that, as a result of the transfer, he did 

not receive a copy of the Court’s Order dictating he should file his reply on or before 

January 20, 2015 (Doc. 15) until he received his forwarded mail on January 15, 2015. Id. 

Further, Petitioner complained that he had already started his reply prior to his transfer 

but that he had been prohibited from bringing said reply and all attendant legal research 

when he was moved to the Yuma facility. Id. Petitioner explicitly requested the Court 

order his “legal work box” and its contents be sent to him at the Yuma County Detention 

Center. Id. 

 Judge Pyle set the matter for a telephonic status conference so that the parties 

could discuss the circumstances described in Petitioner’s January 20, 2015 motion. Doc. 

17. The hearing was not recorded and the Court’s reporter was not present, however 

Petitioner and Counsel for the Respondents appeared telephonically. Doc. 18. The 

Minute Entry from the February 19, 2015 hearing reflects that Magistrate Judge Pyle 

granted Petitioner’s request that the Court to order the Department of Corrections to send 

him his legal work box at the Yuma facility. Id. Magistrate Judge Pyle also confirmed 

that the Petitioner was proceeding pursuant to his Amended Petition (Doc. 8). Id. The 

Court ordered that Respondents would have until March 11, 2015 to file an Amended 

Answer addressing Petitioner’s Amended Petition and that Petitioner would have until 

March 31, 2015 to file a Reply, should he chose to do so (though, the order noted the 

Court would adjust this deadline based upon the status of Petitioner’s access to his 

forthcoming legal materials). Id. 

 On March 10, 2015, before the expiration of the deadline for Respondent’s to file 

their Amended Answer, Magistrate Judge Pyle issued an order staying this matter, sua 

sponte, until such time as it could be determined whether Petitioner would remain at the 

Yuma facility to face new state court charges (or whether Petitioner would be returned to 

ADOC custody in Florence). Doc. 19. The record does not reflect that a copy of this 

Order was mailed to the Petitioner. 

Case 4:14-cv-00733-RCC Document 56 Filed 03/10/16 Page 3 of 7
- 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 

 On April 13, 2015 Magistrate Judge Pyle issued another order, sua sponte, setting 

the matter for a telephonic status conference on April 28, 2015. Doc. 20. A copy of this 

Order was mailed to Petitioner. The next day, however, the Clerk of the Court docketed 

a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21) that had signed by Petitioner on April 7, 2015. 

 Magistrate Judge Pyle denied Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 23), but 

ultimately vacated that order in favor of submitting a Report and Recommendation (the 

instant R&R) to this Court. Doc. 35. Respondent filed timely objections to the R&R 

(Doc. 41), as well as a request to supplement his Objections to the R&R with a letter to 

the Court (Doc. 42). No letter to the Court was attached to Petitioner’s Request to 

Supplement (Doc. 42), however, Petitioner did identify the referenced letter by name. 

See Doc. 42 at 1. Said letter (Doc. 40), which was apparently filed in response to the 

June 5, 2015 telephonic hearing and before Petitioner filed his request to supplement his 

objection(s) to the R&R, was docketed by the Clerk of the Court as a Motion. However, 

in light of Petitioner’s express request that this Court admit and construe this letter as a 

supplemental objection to the R&R (Doc. 42 at 1), this Court will construe it as such. 

 Finally, Petitioner filed a Motion seeking a stay in this matter until such time as 

this Court could issue a ruling on Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss. Doc. 39. 

B. Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss 

On March 14, 2015 Petitioner filed a Motion entitled “Motion to Dismiss.” Doc. 

21. In actuality, the relief sought by Petitioner by and through this pleading is entry of 

default judgement in his favor. See, Id. Petitioner argues that such relief is appropriate 

because Respondents did not file their amended answer on or before March 11, 2015, the 

deadline set by the Court during the February 19, 2015 telephonic status conference. Id. 

In support of this argument, Petitioner cites the general rule that deadlines [set by the 

Court] are to be strictly adhered to and a section of the Court’s Order of June 10, 2014 

warning Petitioner that failure to comply with a Court order may result in dismissal of his 

action. Id. (citing Doc. 5). 

 C. Magistrate Judge Pyle’s R&R 

Case 4:14-cv-00733-RCC Document 56 Filed 03/10/16 Page 4 of 7
- 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 

Magistrate Judge Pyle noted the following well-settled, tenant: “[t]he failure to 

respond to claims raised in a petition for habeus corpus does not entitle the petitioner to a 

default judgement.” Doc. 36 (citing Gordan v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th

Cir.1990)(internal citations omitted)). He also observed that the Respondents did not, in 

fact, fail to comply with a Court ordered deadline because the Court stayed this matter 

prior to the expiration of Respondent’s deadline to file their answer to the Amended 

Petition. Id. at 3. 

II. ANALYSIS 

 A. Standard of Review

 Where the parties object to an R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a 

de novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.” 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The Court will not 

disturb a magistrate judge’s order unless his factual findings are clearly erroneous or his 

legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “[T]he magistrate 

judge’s decision...is entitled to great deference by the district court.” U.S. v. AbonceBarrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 2001). 

 B. Petitioner’s Objections 

 (i) Objections (Doc. 41) 

 Petitioner raises several objections to the R&R, though none address Magistrate 

Judge Pyle’s citation to the holding in Gordan. Nor does Petitioner point to evidence 

undermining the Magistrate Judge Pyle’s observation that Respondent’s deadline was 

suspended as a result of the March 10, 2015 stay order. Instead, Petitioner uses these 

objections to contest the appropriateness of Magistrate Judge Pyle’s order temporarily 

staying proceedings in this case. Petitioner cites no support for his contention that entry 

of default judgment in his favor (and against Respondent) is an appropriate remedy for an 

allegedly improper stay order. 

 (ii) Supplemental Objections (Docs. 42, 40) 

 By and through Petitioner’s Request to Attach Letter of Motion to Dismiss 

Case 4:14-cv-00733-RCC Document 56 Filed 03/10/16 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

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 

Recommendation (Doc. 42), Petitioner seeks to supplement his objections to the R&R 

with a letter addressed to this Court. Though no copy of the referenced letter was 

attached to Petitioner’s request to supplement, only one letter was received by the Court 

that meets Petitioner’s description. Said letter (Doc. 40), dated June 15, 2015, recites 

Petitioner’s interpretation of the procedural events that occurred in this matter. 

Petitioner’s letter also makes several of the same objections to the R&R seen in Doc. 41. 

That is, Petitioner argues that Magistrate Judge Pyle’s sua sponte stay order amounted to 

“prejudice in fact,” because it altered the deadline by which Respondents were to file 

their answer to his Amended Petition, thereby frustrating Petitioner’s ability to capitalize 

on what would have been, hypothetically, an untimely pleading. Id. at 8. Once again, 

Petitioner cites no support for his ultimate contention that entry of default judgment in his 

favor (and against Respondent) is an appropriate remedy for an allegedly improper stay 

order. 

C. Analysis of Petitioner’s Objections 

 Respondent has appeared in this case and has actively defended against 

Petitioner's habeas petition. See, cf. Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

(default judgment is appropriate when a party “has failed to plea or otherwise defend.”). 

Additionally, and contrary to Petitioner's assertion, Respondent's Answer was timely as 

the deadline for filing was suspended by Magistrate Judge Pyle’s March 10, 2015 stay 

order. Moreover, and more importantly, even if Respondent had completely failed to 

respond in any meaningful fashion, the Ninth Circuit has determined that “[t]he failure to 

respond to claims raised in a petition for habeas corpus does not entitle the petitioner to a 

default judgment.” Gordon, 895 F.2d at 612. 

 Neither Petitioner’s complaints concerning any clerical error, nor Petitioner’s 

arguments regarding the appropriateness of the Magistrate Judge Pyle’s March 10, 2015 

stay order, are relevant to the relief sought in his Motion to Dismiss. 

 After a thorough and de novo review of the record and issues raised by and 

through Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss (and all attendant pleadings), the Court agrees 

Case 4:14-cv-00733-RCC Document 56 Filed 03/10/16 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

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 

with Magistrate Judge Pyle’s recommendation that Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss 

(Doc.21) should be denied. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED 

(1) Petitioner’s Motion to Attach [a] Letter ... [to Petitioner’s] Objections [to the 

R&R] (Doc. 42) is granted, however; 

(2) While Court has, pursuant to Petitioner’s request (Doc. 42), construed the 

arguments in Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 40) as a recitation of 

supplemental objections to Magistrate Judge Pyle’s R&R, for the reasons laid forth in 

Section C of this Order, and over all Petitioners objections (Docs. 40 and 41)... 

(3) This Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Pyle’s R&R (Doc. 36) as the 

findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court. 

(4) Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21) is denied. 

(5) Petitioner’s Motion for a Stay of Proceedings (Doc. 39) is denied as moot. 

(6) This matter is referred back to Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle pursuant to Rules 

72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings and a report 

and recommendation. The Clerk of the Court shall docket this matter Case No. 4:14-cv00733-RCC (CRP). 

 Dated this 10th day of March, 2016. 

 

 

 

Case 4:14-cv-00733-RCC Document 56 Filed 03/10/16 Page 7 of 7