Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/3:2011cv08052/603025/19
Timestamp: 2017-12-17 06:31:42
Document Index: 432050564

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 636', '§ 636', '§ 636', '§ 2254']

ORDER that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge Doc for Eishoo v. Ryan et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings
Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit Arizona Arizona District Court Eishoo v. Ryan et al Filing 19
Eishoo v. Ryan et al
ORDER that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge Doc. 17 is accepted. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The Clerk shal l terminate this action. Having considered the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability from the order denying Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Court FINDS: Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are Denied. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 12/29/2011. (KMG)
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Alex Eishoo, Petitioner, 10 11 v. 12 Charles L. Ryan, 13 Respondent. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV11-8052-PCT-NVW ORDER and CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS 15 Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate 16 Judge James F. Metcalf (Doc. 17) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 17 filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that the Petition be 18 denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had 19 fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 27 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)). 20 Petitioner filed objections on December 28, 2011. (Doc. 18.) 21 The court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and 22 Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the 23 court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and 24 Recommendation to which specific objections are made). With the clarification stated 25 below, the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's determinations, accepts the recommended 26 decision within the meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner's 27 objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or 28 modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”). 1 Because Petitioner did seek review in the Arizona Supreme Court, the Magistrate 2 Judge correctly notes that it does not affect the outcome of this case whether he was required 3 to. However, this court does not presume that Petitioner needed to seek such review but 4 rather holds that he did not need to in order have federal habeas corpus review of his life 5 sentence. Crowell v. Knowles, 483 F.Supp.2d 925 (D. Ariz. 2007). 6 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 17) is accepted. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying 9 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The Clerk 10 shall terminate this action. 11 Having considered the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability from the order 12 denying Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Court FINDS: Certificate of 13 Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are Denied. Petitioner has 14 not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right on some claims and is 15 barred by plain procedural bar on other claims and jurists of reason would not find the 16 procedural ruling debatable. 17 DATED this 29th day of December, 2011. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-