Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01950/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01950-1/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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Corletha Sherie Davis, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-01950-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is pro se Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) 

of United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns (Doc 9), wherein she recommends 

denial of the Petition and dismissal with prejudice. Petitioner timely filed objections to 

the R&R. (Doc. 10). Respondents filed no objections. The Court now rules as follows. I. 

R & R 

 Petitioner is seeking habeas relief based upon one narrow claim, which she raised 

on direct appeal to the Arizona Court of Appeals. Namely, Petitioner alleges: 

that because the trial court gave a duplicitous, dangerous- offense instruction in that it included two distinct theories the 

jury could have used to find the offense was dangerous (serious physical injury and use of a deadly weapon), there was no unanimous jury finding of dangerousness that would support aggravating Petitioner’s sentence, as under the 

Arizona statutory sentencing scheme “serious physical injury” could not be used as an aggravating factor. 

Case 2:14-cv-01950-DJH Document 12 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

(Doc. 9 at 4:11-16). After a detailed and accurate recitation of the background of this 

claim, the Magistrate Judge proceeded to analyze whether a faulty jury instruction could 

support habeas relief herein. 

 At step one of this analysis, the Magistrate Judge found that “constitutional error 

occurred when the trial court relied on the ambiguous dangerousness finding to impose 

an aggravated sentence[,]” id. at 6:12-13 (citation omitted), which the State conceded in 

its answer. (Doc. 7 at 8:7-11). Based upon this finding, the Magistrate Judge properly 

applied the harmless-error test, and found that “Petitioner was not prejudiced, . . . , by the 

erroneous jury instruction, as it did not have a substantial and injurious effect on her 

trial.” (Id. at 6:17-18). Finally, the Magistrate Judge found, among other things, that 

“Petitioner does not allege or establish that she was prejudiced by the erroneous jury 

instruction, and thus Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief.” (Id. at 7:7-8) (citation 

omitted). Because Petitioner’s habeas petition failed on the merits, the Magistrate Judge, 

as stated at the outset, recommended denial and dismissal with prejudice. The Magistrate 

Judge further recommended denial of a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis on appeal because Petitioner did not make the requisite showing. See 

id. at 7:23-25. 

II. Analysis 

This Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or 

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which” a Petitioner objects. 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to.”); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (same). 

Conversely, the relevant provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not 

the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (emphasis added); 

see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo 

review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R, [Reyna–

Tapia,] 328 F.3d [at] 1121. . . (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates 

Case 2:14-cv-01950-DJH Document 12 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the 

parties themselves accept as correct”)[.]”). Likewise, it is well-settled that “’failure to 

object to a magistrate judge's factual findings waives the right to challenge those 

findings[.]’” Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Miranda 

v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) 

(footnote omitted)). 

 Although Petitioner Davis did file objections, critically, she is not challenging any 

aspect of the R & R. Instead, Petitioner contends that the State “failed to notify [her] of 

[its] intent to use” another sentence aggravator -- use of a deadly weapon. (Doc 10 at 

8:24-27). This seemingly new claim was, understandably, not addressed in the R & R. 

Moreover, because Petitioner makes no objections at all to the R & R, this Court is not 

required to review the R & R. Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R & R and agrees 

with its sounding reasoning, findings and recommendations. The Court will, therefore, 

accept the R & R, deny the Petition and dismiss this matter with prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) 

(same). 

III. Conclusion 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING as an Order of this Court 

Magistrate Judge Burns’ R & R (Doc. 9). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING AND DISMISSING WITH 

PREJUDICE the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 

1). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis on appeal be DENIED because Petitioner has not made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

. . . . 

. . . . 

Case 2:14-cv-01950-DJH Document 12 Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall terminate this 

action and enter judgment accordingly. 

Dated this 20th day of June, 2016. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 2:14-cv-01950-DJH Document 12 Filed 06/20/16 Page 4 of 4