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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Charles T Crockett, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-18-00443-PHX-JJT (JZB)

ORDER 

At issue is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 15) entered in this 

matter by United States Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle, which recommends the Court 

deny and dismiss with prejudice the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). Petitioner timely filed an Objection (Doc. 16) to the R&R, and 

Respondents filed a Response. (Doc. 17.) The Court has considered all of the above. 

 Judge Boyle correctly concluded that Petitioner’s arguments on Grounds One and 

Two of his Petition failed on the merits, because Petitioner failed even to argue the required 

finding the Court must make to grant relief—that the state court’s rejections of his claims 

as made in Grounds One and Two were either 1) contrary to or an unreasonable application 

of clearly established federal law; or 2) the result of an unreasonable determination of the 

facts. Despite Petitioner’s failure to identify the applicable test, Judge Boyle applied it 

anyway, and rightly concluded that the standard for relief was not met. Judge Boyle’s 

detailed reasoning is set forth in the R&R and, unable to improve on it, the Court will not 

repeat it here. 
- 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 

 Judge Boyle also correctly concluded that Petitioner’s claim in Ground Three is 

unexhausted at the state court level, and procedurally defaulted without excuse, and 

therefore cannot be considered on the merits at this Court. While Judge Boyle proceeded 

in the R&R to evaluate Ground Three on its merits, finding that nonetheless it fails, this 

Court need not go so far, as a procedural default without excuse obviates, and even 

prohibits, evaluation on the merits of a claim under AEDPA and the attendant case law 

interpreting it. 

 Petitioner’s Objection is voluminous but fails to address the reasoning of Judge 

Boyle’s R&R, instead arguing past the recommended findings and simply restating the 

same conclusions he argued in his Petition. This is insufficient to persuade the Court of 

any flaw in the reasoning of the R&R. 

 IT IS ORDERED overruling the Objection (Doc. 16) and adopting the R&R (Doc. 

15). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying and dismissing with prejudice the Petition 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The Clerk of Court shall 

enter judgment accordingly and close this matter. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability in this matter 

because 1) dismissal of Ground Three of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar 

and reasonable jurists would not find the procedural ruling debatable; and 2) as to Grounds 

One and Two, Petitioner cannot make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right. 

 Dated this 21st day of December, 2018. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge