Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01138/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01138-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Roderick Tyler Kamalo, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Lance R. Hetmer, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-01138-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. 1), respondents' limited answer (doc. 11), and the Report and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. 13). No objections to the

Report and Recommendation were filed and the time for doing so has expired.

The magistrate judge concluded that petitioner presented a mixed petition, in that he

presented exhausted and unexhausted claims. In this situation, we may dismiss the petition

or grant a stay. A stay and abeyance is only appropriate if petitioner had good cause for his

failure to exhaust and his claims are potentially meritorious. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269,

278, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005). Petitioner has not filed a motion to stay and abey while

he exhausts his claim of actual innocence. The magistrate judge found that petitioner did not

have good cause for his failure to exhaust and his claim is not potentially meritorious. We

agree, and decline to stay consideration of the petition. 

We "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge's] report

Case 2:11-cv-01138-FJM Document 15 Filed 04/11/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). We 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). Since no objections have been made, we accept in whole the

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.

Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, requires that in habeas cases the

"district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order

adverse to the applicant." If a habeas petition is denied on procedural grounds without

reaching the merits, a certificate of appealability "should issue when the prisoner shows, at

least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim

of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000). The magistrate judge found, and we agree, that

jurists of reason would not find the correctness of our procedural ruling debatable.

IT IS ORDERED accepting the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge

(doc. 13) and DENYING the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas corpus

(doc. 1).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING a certificate of appealability. 

DATED this 11th day of April, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01138-FJM Document 15 Filed 04/11/12 Page 2 of 2