Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-00077/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-00077-2/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

Lopez G. Newhall, )

 )

 Petitioner, ) CIV 06-0077-PCT-EHC (DKD)

 )

vs. ) O R D E R

 ) 

Dora Schriro and the Attorney General )

for the State of Arizona, )

)

)

 )

 Respondents. )

 )

On January 6, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 with exhibits. (Dkt. 1). An Answer/Response with Exhibits was

filed June 5, 2006. (Dkt. 12). Petitioner filed a Reply. (Dkt. 15). Magistrate Judge David

K. Duncan issued a Report and Recommendation February 2, 2007. (Dkt. 16). Petitioner

filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation including a request for an

Evidentiary Hearing. (Dkt. 17).

 \\

\\

Case 3:06-cv-00077-EHC Document 19 Filed 03/09/07 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 -

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A district court judge reviews de novo the Report and Recommendation of a

Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

DISCUSSION

Attached to Petitioner's "Objection to 'Report and Recommendation'" is a letter to

Petitioner, dated August 28, 2006, from Attorney David I. Goldberg (Goldberg) who

represented Petitioner in the state habeas proceeding, together with an Affidavit

concerning a conversation Goldberg had with Petitioner's trial counsel David Martin. The

Affidavit reports in substance, that Martin "...did not likely send him a letter regarding the

last offer or discuss it with him in person." 

Petitioner has not denied that he received the fourth offer from Martin. His complaint

is that counsel arguably did not urge him to take the fourth offer and if he had done so,

Petitioner would have accepted the offer.

This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that "such self-serving

speculation is an insufficient basis for a claim of prejudice."

The Court having reviewed the record de novo, including the Objection filed by

Petitioner, adopts in full the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and

incorporates the same as a part of this Order.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED denying Petitioner's Objection to the Report and Recommendation

and Request for Evidentiary Hearing. (Dkts. 15 & 17).

Case 3:06-cv-00077-EHC Document 19 Filed 03/09/07 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 adopting the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. 16).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

(Dkt. 1).

DATED this 9th day of March, 2007.

Case 3:06-cv-00077-EHC Document 19 Filed 03/09/07 Page 3 of 3