Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02279/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02279-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kevin Dwight Wilkins, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Tara Diaz, Deputy Warden; Attorney

General of the State of Arizona, 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2279-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On September 22, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.

#1). On March 1, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation

("R&R"), recommending that the Petition be denied with prejudice because each of

Petitioner's claims remains unexhausted and procedurally defaulted (Doc. # 20). Petitioner,

pro se, filed an objection to the R&R (Doc. # 21). 

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is "clear that the

district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if

objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219,

1126 (D.Ariz. 2003) ("Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of

factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, 'but not otherwise.'"). District

Case 2:06-cv-02279-JAT Document 22 Filed 06/28/07 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 -

courts are not required to conduct "any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject

of an objection." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

[report and recommendation] to which objection is made.").

II. DISCUSSION

Petitioner makes no objection to the substance of the R&R but only to the Magistrate

Judge's denial of counsel. Petitioner claims he will face prejudice if required to return to

state court without the appointment of counsel, which he requested (Doc. #13) after filing the

present Petition, but the Magistrate Judge denied (Doc. #14). However, the R&R, if

accepted, would dismiss the Petition with prejudice based on the Magistrate Judge's

conclusion that no state court remedies remain available to Petitioner. Thus, a return to state

court is not suggested by the R&R. With respect to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of counsel,

this Court accepts the legal standard articulated by the Magistrate Judge:

Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas relief are not entitled to appointed

counsel unless the circumstances indicate that appointed counsel is necessary

to prevent due process violations. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th

cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638,

640 (9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam); Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir.

1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 996 (1966). The Court has discretion to appoint

counsel when a judge "determines that the interests of justice so require."

Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499

U.S. 979 (1991) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B)). "In deciding whether

to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district court must evaluate the

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues

involved." Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).

(Doc. #14 at 1). 

Here, this Court finds that success on the merits of Petitioner's claims is unlikely,

given the procedural defaults, as noted by the Magistrate Judge. Additionally, Petitioner has

demonstrated an ability to research the law and write appropriate and comprehensible

motions for a court to review. He has already articulated the essential substance of his present

claim in Ground I to the Arizona Court of Appeals, alleging a violation of the Arizona Rules

of Criminal Procedure. That court found that Petitioner's failure to be informed of a right to

a 12-person jury did not constitute fundamental error. Subsequently, Petitioner appealed the

Case 2:06-cv-02279-JAT Document 22 Filed 06/28/07 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 -

same substantive argument, alleging a violation of the Arizona Constitution to the Arizona

Supreme Court, which denied review. Such findings support the conclusion that success on

the merits of Petitioner's claims is doubtful, the issues of law presented in this habeas petition

are not exceedingly complex, and that Petitioner is able to articulate his claims pro se.

Accordingly, the Court overrules Petitioner's objection to the denial of the appointment of

counsel and affirms the Magistrate Judge's Order (Doc. # 14). 

Finally, as indicated above, Petitioner did not object to the merits of the R&R. The

Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Grounds I, II and III are

unexhausted and procedurally defaulted. Therefore, the Court agrees that the Petition should

be denied. 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 20) is accepted and

adopted, the objection (Doc. # 21) is overruled; the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.

#1) is denied, with prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 26th day of June, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02279-JAT Document 22 Filed 06/28/07 Page 3 of 3