Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00314/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00314-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Craig Apker
Respondent
Gary Ronald Warren
Petitioner

Document Text:

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 

Gary Ronald Warren, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Craig Apker, 

Respondent.

No. CV-12-00314-TUC-JGZ

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United 

States Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald that recommends: (1) denying Petitioner’s 

habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241 (Doc. 1); (2) denying as moot 

Petitioner’s Motion That This District Court Now Reach the Merits of This Habeas 

Petition (Doc. 25); (3) Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Judicial Notice (Doc. 26) and (4) 

declining to issue a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 30.) 

As thoroughly explained by Magistrate Judge Macdonald, Petitioner is not entitled 

to relief as his Petition is without merit. As Petitioner’s objections do not undermine the 

analysis and proper conclusion reached by Magistrate Judge Macdonald, Petitioner’s 

objections are rejected and the Report and Recommendation is adopted.1

 

1 Petitioner’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation is 71 pages in length, well in 

excess of the ten page limit set forth in LRCiv 7.2(m)(1). Petitioner’s Objection includes new 

claims which Petitioner states he would have raised in his Reply to Respondent’s Answer but he 

did not have sufficient time to brief them before the deadline for his Reply expired. (Doc. 34, 

pg. 48.) The Court has discretion, but is not required, to consider evidence presented for the first 

time in a party's objection to a magistrate judge's recommendation. Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 

744 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court declines to consider the new claims alleged in Petitioner’s 

Objection. First, the claims are merely conclusory. Conclusory allegations are not sufficient to 

Case 4:12-cv-00314-JGZ Document 40 Filed 05/16/14 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 

Also pending before the Court is a Motion for Polygraph Test filed by Petitioner on 

March 28, 2014. (Doc. 35.) Petitioner contends that the Court should order Petitioner to 

submit to a polygraph test regarding the arguments presented in Respondent’s Answer to 

Petitioner’s habeas petition and then consider Petitioner’s statements made during the 

polygraph test as evidence relevant to the pending habeas Petition. The Court may, in its 

discretion, consider supplemental evidence introduced for the first time by a party’s 

objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 

615, 621 (9th Cir. 2000). Petitioner has had adequate opportunity to brief his opposition 

to Respondent’s Answer and further testimony from Petitioner on this issue would not 

assist the Court in its decision. Accordingly, the Court will deny the Motion. 

 Before Petitioner can appeal this Court's judgment, a certificate of appealability 

must issue. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 22(b) requires the district court that rendered a judgment denying 

the petition made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 to "either issue a certificate of 

appealability or state why a certificate should not issue." Additionally, 28 U.S.C. 

§2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate may issue "only if the applicant has made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." In the certificate, the court 

must indicate which specific issues satisfy this showing. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(3). A 

substantial showing is made when the resolution of an issue of appeal is debatable among 

reasonable jurists, if courts could resolve the issues differently, or if the issue deserves 

further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Upon review 

of the record in light of the standards for granting a certificate of appealability, the Court 

concludes that a certificate shall not issue as the resolution of the petition is not debatable 

among reasonable jurists and does not deserve further proceedings. 

// 

 support habeas relief. See Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 204–05 (9th Cir. 1995). In addition, 

Petitioner has failed to explain his failure to raise these claims in his Petition. See United States 

v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 623 (9th Cir.2000) (district court does not abuse its discretion in 

declining to consider new arguments raised in objection to report and recommendation which 

were available to counsel before the magistrate's proceedings began).

Case 4:12-cv-00314-JGZ Document 40 Filed 05/16/14 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 

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 30) is accepted and adopted; 

2. Petitioner’s Motion That This District Court Now Reach the Merits of This 

Habeas Petition (Doc. 25) is DENIED AS MOOT; 

3. Petitioner’s Motion for Judicial Notice (Doc. 26) is DENIED; 

4. Petitioner’s Motion for Polygraph Test (Doc. 35) is DENIED; 

5. Respondent’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 39) is DENIED AS MOOT; 

6. Petitioner’s §2241 Petition (Doc. 1) is denied and this case is dismissed with 

prejudice; 

7. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this 

matter. 

 Dated this 15th day of May, 2014. 

Case 4:12-cv-00314-JGZ Document 40 Filed 05/16/14 Page 3 of 3