Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08063/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08063-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

William C. Barker, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-08063-PCT-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. 1), respondents’ answer (doc. 15), and petitioner’s reply (doc. 18). We

also have before us the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge

(doc. 21), and petitioner’s objections (doc. 22). 

Petitioner was found guilty by a jury of resisting arrest in violation of A.R.S. § 13-

2508 and was sentenced to a 3-year term of probation. 

The Magistrate Judge determined that petitioner’s habeas claim is procedurally

defaulted and that petitioner has not established cause or prejudice, or a fundamental

miscarriage of justice to overcome that default. The Magistrate Judge therefore recommends

denying and dismissing the habeas petition with prejudice. We review de novo “any

proposed finding or recommendation to which objection is made.” Rule 8(b), Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases.

Case 3:12-cv-08063-FJM Document 23 Filed 03/07/13 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

A state prisoner must exhaust his remedies in state court before petitioning for a writ

of habeas corpus in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) & (c). A claim is procedurally

defaulted if the petitioner failed to present his federal claims to the state court, but returning

to state court would be futile because the state court’s procedural rules would bar

consideration of the previously unraised claims. Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 297-98

(1989). A petitioner can overcome the procedural default if he can demonstrate cause and

prejudice. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 732 (1991). To establish “cause,” a

petitioner must show that “some objective factor external to the defense impeded [his] efforts

to comply with the State’s procedural rule.” Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 (1986).

In order to show “prejudice,” the petitioner must show “not merely that the errors at trial

created a possibility of prejudice, but that they worked to his actual and substantial

disadvantage, infecting his entire trial with error of constitutional dimensions.” United States

v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 170 (1982) (emphasis in original).

Alternatively, a petitioner may overcome a procedural default if he can demonstrate

that the failure to consider his claims on the merits will result in a “fundamental miscarriage

of justice.” Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 327 (1995). A fundamental miscarriage of justice

occurs if the petitioner can show that a “constitutional violation has probably resulted in the

conviction of one who is actually innocent.” Murray, 477 U.S. at 496. The petitioner must

establish that it is “more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found [him]

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Schlup, 513 U.S. at 327. 

Petitioner admits in his habeas petition that he did not petition the state court for postconviction relief. (doc. 1 at 3). It is further undisputed that a return to state court would be

futile under Arizona’s procedural rules. We agree with the Magistrate Judge that petitioner

has demonstrated neither cause, prejudice, nor a fundamental miscarriage of justice to

overcome his procedural default. 

Petitioner has shown no objective factor that impeded his ability to exhaust his state

remedies. His challenges to counsel’s performance on appeal are unavailing because he did

not raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in state court. See Murray, 477 U.S. at

Case 3:12-cv-08063-FJM Document 23 Filed 03/07/13 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

489 (holding that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be presented to the state

court as an independent claim before it may be used to establish cause for a procedural

default). Nor has petitioner shown that an error worked to his actual and substantial

disadvantage, infecting the entire trial with constitutional error.

We also agree with the Magistrate Judge that a review of the merits of petitioner’s

claims is not necessary to avoid a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Although petitioner

believes that “he was not under arrest, but only detained” during his altercation with the

police officers, and therefore he could not have been guilty of “resisting arrest,” it is

undisputed that the altercation occurred in the context of the officers attempting to handcuff

petitioner. An arrest occurs when a person’s “freedom of movement is curtailed.” State v.

Cole, 172 Ariz. 590, 591, 838 P.2d 1351, 1352 (Ct. App. 1992). During the altercation,

petitioner “was grabbed, pushed over, wrestled with, and shot with a Taser by uniformed

officers trying to handcuff him.” State v. Barker, 227 Ariz. 89, 91, 253 P.3d 286, 288 (Ct.

App. 2011). Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that no reasonable

juror would have found him guilty of resisting arrest under these circumstances.

After de novo consideration of the issues, we accept the recommended decision of the

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Rule 8(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 

IT IS ORDERED DENYING and DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE the petition

for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1).

Because the dismissal of the petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists

of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

DENYING a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

DATED this 7th day of March, 2013.

Case 3:12-cv-08063-FJM Document 23 Filed 03/07/13 Page 3 of 3