Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01320/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01320-4/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 

Sean Patrick Husband, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-01320-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine (Doc. 90), Respondent’s Objections to Magistrates 

Report and Recommendation (Doc. 93) and Petitioner’s Response to State’s Objections 

(Doc. 94.). 

 The R&R recommends that the Court order that Petitioner’s habeas petition be 

amended to included Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel (“IAAC”) and 

ineffective assistance of PCR counsel claims and that the Court find that Martinez v. 

Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012) is applicable to excuse Petitioner’s procedural defaults of 

his IAAC claim and his irreconcilable conflict claim in Grounds One and Six of his 

Amended Petition. The R&R recommends that the Court conduct a hearing to allow 

Petitioner to establish cause and prejudice for the procedural defaults. The Court agrees 

with Magistrate Judge that after Nguyen v. Curry, 736 F.3d 1287 (9th Cir. 2013) the 

Martinez standard for “cause” applies where the counsel for the post-conviction state 

proceeding was unable to raise the IAAC claim in the PCR because appellate and PCR 

Case 2:13-cv-01320-DLR Document 95 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

counsel were one and the same. The Court further agrees with the Magistrate Judge that 

in Arizona an indigent defendant has no right to court appointed counsel for the second 

PCR and therefore Petitioner had no realistic opportunity to raise the IAAC in state court 

when appellate counsel and PCR counsel were one in the same. The court agrees with 

the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner’s failure to present the second IAAC claim in state 

court is not a fatal procedural default. Further, the Court agrees that Petitioner should be 

afforded a hearing to establish cause and prejudice. 

 The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file 

objections to the R&R. (R&R at 15 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72)). 

Respondent filed its objections on August 3, 2016 (Doc. 93) and Petitioner filed his 

Response to State’s Objections to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation on August 

17, 2016. (Doc. 94.) 

 The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and 

Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that 

the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and 

Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The Court agrees with the 

Magistrate Judge’s determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the 

meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Respondent’s objections. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”). 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 90) is accepted. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s habeas petition be amended, as 

requested by Petitioner’s counsel (Doc. 89 at 5), to include IAAC and ineffective 

assistance of PCR counsel claims. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), is 

applicable to excuse Petitioner’s procedural defaults of his IAAC claim and his 

irreconcilable conflict claim in Grounds One and Six of his Amended Petition Under 28 

Case 2:13-cv-01320-DLR Document 95 Filed 09/30/16 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 15). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a hearing on November 22, 2016 at 1:30 

p.m., for four hours to allow Petitioner the opportunity to establish cause and prejudice 

for the procedural defaults. 

 Dated this 30th day of September, 2016. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge

Case 2:13-cv-01320-DLR Document 95 Filed 09/30/16 Page 3 of 3