Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00717/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00717-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jose Manuel Dominguez,

Petitioner,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-0717-PHX-PGR (JM)

 

 ORDER

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Marshall in light of the petitioner’s Objections to Report and

Recommendation (doc. #22), filed August 3, 2009, the Court finds that the

petitioner’s objections are meritless and that the Magistrate Judge correctly

concluded that the petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be dismissed with prejudice because the petitioner

failed to properly exhaust his state court remedies as to any of the claims raised

in his petition. 

The petitioner’s first habeas claim alleges that his trial counsel was

ineffective because he failed to move for a mistrial based on the state’s closing

argument, failed to suppress evidence, and failed to object to Detective Mendez’s

testimony. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the petitioner,

Case 2:07-cv-00717-PGR Document 23 Filed 08/19/09 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

- 2 -

notwithstanding that he raised these issues before the Arizona Court of Appeals

during his direct appeal, failed to raise any of these ineffective assistance of

counsel claims before the state court in the procedural manner required by

Arizona law, i.e. in his Rule 32 motion for post-conviction relief as the Arizona

Court of Appeals directed him to do in its order resolving his direct appeal.

The petitioner’s second habeas claim involves an ineffective assistance of

counsel claim based on his trial counsel’s failure to object to a purported violation

of the petitioner’s speedy trial rights. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded

that while the petitioner raised this issue in his post-conviction relief proceedings,

he failed to fairly present it as a federal issue inasmuch as he made no mention

of the Sixth Amendment and did not cite to any law sufficiently related to the U.S.

Constitution’s right to a speedy trial that would have alerted the state court to the

presence of a federal issue.

The Magistrate Judge also correctly concluded that the petitioner has failed

to demonstrate any cause for his procedurally defaulted claims or any actual

prejudice arising from his error, and has failed to establish that a fundamental

miscarriage of justice, in the legally required sense, would result from the Court

not reaching the merits of his habeas petition. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner’s Motion for Disposition After

Reassignment of Magistrate Judge Jacqueline J. Marshall (doc. #20) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (doc. #21) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied and

that this action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter

Case 2:07-cv-00717-PGR Document 23 Filed 08/19/09 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

- 3 -

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 18th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-00717-PGR Document 23 Filed 08/19/09 Page 3 of 3