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

 

 The Court has before it, Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Docs. 1), the Amended Petition (Doc. 9) and the Second Amended 

Petition. (Doc. 14) This Court is also in receipt of the Answer from the Respondents (Doc. 

21), Petitioner’s Reply (Doc. 22), Petitioner’s Motion to Stay the Proceedings (Doc. 23) 

and the Respondent’s Response to the Motion to Stay. (Doc. 24) Additionally, the Court 

is in receipt the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 25), 

Petitioner’s Motion to File Attachment (Doc. 26), Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 27), 

Respondent’s Response to the Objections (Doc. 28), and Petitioner’s Attachment. (Doc. 

30) 

 Petitioner argues in Ground 1 that several of his constitutional rights were violated. 

(Doc. 14 at 6) In Grounds 2 and 3, Petitioner argues additional violations of his 

constitutional rights when he “re-signed” “Condition 21” that he believes was not part of 

his original terms of probation in 2003. (Id. at 7-8) In Ground 4 the Petitioner argues his 

Arizona state court “sentencing order was jurisdictionally transferred to immigration which 

Ikemefula Charles Ibeabuchi, 

 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-18-00238-PHX-SPL 

ORDER 

 
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 

invalidated Arizona’s jurisdiction.” (Id. at 9) Respondents argue Petitioner’s claims are not 

properly before this Court because the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he is 

innocent and cannot excuse his procedural defaults. (Doc. 21 at 13-30) Respondents further 

argue the Petitioner failed to demonstrate his burden to show cause and prejudice, or a 

fundamental miscarriage of justice, to excuse the procedural defaults of his claims. (Id.) 

The Magistrate Judge concluded the Petitioner failed to raise the claims at issue in his direct 

appeal. (Doc. 25 at 3-10) Additionally, the Magistrate Judge concluded the claims are 

unexhausted and procedurally defaulted without excuse. (Id.) 

 A district judge “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). When a party files a 

timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R 

that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires 

specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). It 

follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific 

objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 

U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial 

economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or 

arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and the Court’s 

decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622 

(9th Cir. 2000). 

 The Court has undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently developed record. 

The Petitioner’s objections to the findings and recommendations have also been carefully 

considered. 

 After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches 

the same conclusions reached by Judge Boyle. This Court finds, although timely filed, the 

Petitioner’s claims are procedurally defaulted and are also without merit. Having carefully 

reviewed the record, the Petitioner has not shown that he is entitled to habeas relief. The 
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 

R&R will be adopted in full. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25) is 

accepted and adopted by the Court; 

2. That the Motion to Stay (Doc. 23) is denied; 

3. That the Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 27) are overruled; 

4. That the Motion to file an attachment (Doc. 30) is granted; 

5. That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 14) is denied and this 

action is dismissed with prejudice; 

6. That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

on appeal are denied because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural 

bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable; and 

7. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 15th day of February 2019.

Honorable Steven P. Logan 

United States District Judge