Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-02525/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-02525-4/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

Dean Joseph Woodburn, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 01-2525 PHX-NVW (VAM)

ORDER

Before the court are Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.

# 11), United States Magistrate Judge Virginia Mathis’s Report and Recommendation (Doc.

# 98), and Petitioner's Objection to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #

99).

The court has considered Petitioner’s 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). The court has read the transcript

of the September 27, 2006 evidentiary hearing before Magistrate Judge Mathis and has

considered the exhibits admitted in evidence therein. The court agrees with the Magistrate

Judge's determinations, accepts her recommended decision within the meaning of Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72(b), and overrules Petitioner's objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that

Case 2:01-cv-02525-NVW Document 100 Filed 12/06/06 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 -

the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate”).

The court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, including her

credibility determinations, and adds the following points only as a matter of emphasis.

Petitioner was actively and personally involved in litigating both a different habeas corpus

petition and a civil rights action in this court during the time (December 2000 through

December 2001) that he now contends he was mentally incompetent to timely bring this

petition. His contention that jail house lawyers were doing the work falls far short of mental

incompetency, as he admits that he read, signed and filed the papers he says were written by

his helpers. He further admits that he was giving his helpers “information to put in the

documents,” and also that the jail house lawyers “had my court transcripts that I had and they

were going through them with me.” (Tr. 58, Sept. 27, 2006.) 

The court does not find and does not take the Report and Recommendation as

determining that Petitioner wholly lacked assistance, whether in composing, typing or

handwriting the court papers filed in the other habeas and civil rights cases. (Doc. # 98 at

12.) His testimony that papers in his own handwriting were copied from the work of others

is not credible. (Doc. # 98 at 13 ¶ 3.) This court also disbelieves his testimony that he did

not draft the documents that he signed in those actions, if by that he means that he did not

understand their content and actively participated in their creation. (Id.) That he had help

from others in the drafting of some documents does not show mental incompetency. Rather,

his active participation and understanding of the documents proves his competency.

Petitioner lacks credibility as a witness, as the Report and Recommendation details.

His testimony that he was mentally incompetent for nine years and, more specifically, from

December 2000 through December 2001, is unworthy of belief. His own actions in that

critical year show understanding and purpose wholly inconsistent with mental incompetency.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Mathis (Doc. # 98) is accepted. 

Case 2:01-cv-02525-NVW Document 100 Filed 12/06/06 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus (Doc. # 11) is denied and dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and

terminate this action.

DATED this 4th day of December 2006.

 

Case 2:01-cv-02525-NVW Document 100 Filed 12/06/06 Page 3 of 3