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 

Reginald McHaji Edwards,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-18-00226-PHX-JJT (JZB)

ORDER 

 At issue is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) (“R&R”) entered by United 

States Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle, recommending that the Court deny and dismiss 

with prejudice the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(Doc. 1) filed in this matter. Petitioner timely filed Objections to the R&R (Doc. 13). Upon 

consideration of the Petition, Response thereto, Reply, R&R and Objections, the Court will 

adopt the R&R, overrule the Objections and dismiss the Petition. 

 Judge Boyle’s analysis of each of the seven grounds for relief in the Petition is 

correct, thorough and exhaustive yet succinct. Grounds One (state court entering “not 

guilty” plea for Petitioner at the hospital without explaining the elements of the offenses 

charged and without counsel), Two (Petitioner’s pre-trial detention), and Three 

(Petitioner’s shackling for all state court proceedings) are all waived by his subsequent 

guilty plea pursuant to plea agreement with the state. Moreover, Petitioner can show no 

prejudice from any of these grounds in any event. His claim of detention and the advice of 

counsel and the state court all overbearing his will not to plead guilty in Ground Six is 
- 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 

unexhausted and procedurally defaulted because he never raised it at the state court level, 

and has thus deprived the state courts from having the opportunity to review and if 

necessary remedy the issue, as is required under AEDPA. 

The Court finds Petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in Ground 

Four meritless for the reasons set forth in detail in Judge Boyle’s comprehensive analysis. 

His actual innocence claim as set forth in Ground Five utterly fails to meet the standard set 

forth in Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995). Finally, as Judge Boyle correctly concluded, 

Petitioner’s claim that he was incompetent to enter a guilty plea due to his sustaining a 

frontal bone fracture three years before entry of the plea in this matter is meritless, as he 

now makes this bare allegation with no evidence or even a suggestion as to why the state 

trial court should have suspected Petitioner could not understand proceedings, when he 

answered all of the court’s questions at the change of plea proceeding appropriately and 

under oath. 

 IT IS ORDERED adopting the R&R (Doc. 12) entered by Judge Boyle in whole and 

overruling the Objections (Doc. 13) filed by Petitioner. 

 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 terminate this matter. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner a Certificate of Appealability and 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter, because dismissal of this Petition is 

justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling 

debatable; neither has Petitioner made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right. 

 Dated this 8th day of March, 2019. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi 

United States District Judge