Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01839/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01839-3/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Abo Obaida Hussein, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, Director of the Arizona

Department of Corrections; and the

Attorney General of the State of Arizona,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1839-PHX-DGC (MEA)

ORDER

In February 2006, a state court jury convicted Abo Hussein on four counts of sexual

contact with a minor. Hussein received a 52-year sentence. The Arizona Court of Appeals

affirmed the conviction and sentence. Hussein did not seek review by the Arizona Supreme

Court, nor did he seek collateral post-conviction relief.

Hussein commenced this action by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. #1. United States Magistrate Judge Mark Aspey has issued a

report and recommendation (“R&R”) that the petition be denied. Dkt. #28. Petitioner has

filed objections to the R&R. Dkt. ##31, 34. For reasons that follow, the Court will accept

the R&R and deny the petition.

The petition asserts six grounds for relief based on alleged violations of Petitioner’s

rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution. Dkt. #1. The Magistrate Judge finds that each ground for relief is procedurally

defaulted because Petitioner did not fairly present his constitutional claims to the state courts,

Case 2:08-cv-01839-DGC Document 35 Filed 01/22/10 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 -

the time to raise those claims in state court has expired, and Petitioner has not shown cause

and prejudice or a miscarriage of justice sufficient to overcome the procedural default.

Dkt. #28.

The Court may accept, reject, or modify the findings and recommendations made by

the Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court must

undertake a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which specific objections are

made. Id.; see United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

While Petitioner continues to assert a denial of his constitutional rights in the state

court proceedings (Dkt. #31, 34), he does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that

each federal claim raised in his habeas petition is barred by procedural default (see id.). The

Court will therefore accept the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and deny the petition as

procedurally defaulted. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121 (“[Section 636(b)(1)] makes

clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations

de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”) (emphasis in original); Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (same).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Dkt. #28) is accepted. 

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. #1) is denied.

3. Petitioner’s motion for discovery (Dkt. #26) and motion for new trial

(Dkt. #32) are denied.

4. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action.

DATED this 21st day of January, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01839-DGC Document 35 Filed 01/22/10 Page 2 of 2