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 

Danny Brown, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-514-TUC-JGZ

ORDER 

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

States Magistrate Bruce G. Macdonald that recommends denying Petitioner’s Amended 

Habeas Petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 and granting in party and denying in 

part Petitioner’s Ademdum [sic] Motion to Grant Writ.1

 (Doc. 40.) As thoroughly 

explained by Magistrate Judge Macdonald, the claims in Petitioner’s petition are 

procedurally defaulted and/or without merit. As Petitioner’s objections (Doc. 43) 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. 

Also pending before the Court are two motions filed by Petitioner on May 1, 2017: 

a Motion for Leave to File Petition for P.C.R. / Exhaust State Remedies and a Motion to 

Stay Proceedings. (Docs. 41, 42.) In the pending Motions, Petitioner asks this Court to 

stay review of his Amended §2254 Petition while he pursues exhaustion of his claims in 

 

1

 The Magistrate Judge recommended that Petitioner’s Ademdum [sic] Motion to 

Grant Writ (Doc. 34) be granted to the extent it seeks a ruling on Petitioner’s §2254 Petition, and denied in all other respects. 
- 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 

state court. As explained in Judge Macdonald’s R&R, Petitioner’s unexhausted claims 

would be precluded by the Arizona courts if Petitioner were to attempt to raise them in a 

subsequent state court petition for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, the Court will 

deny Petitioner’s Motions. 

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

must issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1) (the applicant cannot take an appeal unless a 

circuit justice or a circuit or district judge issues a certificate of appealability under 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)). 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. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 40) is accepted and adopted; 

2. Petitioner’s Amended §2254 Petition (Doc. 7) is denied; 

3. To the extent that Petitioner’s Ademdum [sic] Motion to Grant Writ (Doc. 34) 

seeks a ruling on his Amended §2254 Petition, the Motion is GRANTED. The 

Ademdum [sic] Motion to Grant Writ is denied in all other respects. 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 
- 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 

4. Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File Petition for P.C.R. / Exhaust State Remedies 

and Motion to Stay Proceedings (Docs. 41, 42) are DENIED; 

5. A Certificate of Appealability is denied and shall not issue; and 

6. This case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment 

accordingly and close the file in this matter. 

 Dated this 31st day of May, 2017.