Filed: Dec. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 21, 2018
Summary: ORDER JOHN J. TUCHI , District Judge . At issue is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 13) entered in this matter by United States Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett, which recommends the Court deny and dismiss with prejudice the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 (Doc. 4). Petitioner timely filed an Objection (Doc. 14) to the R&R, and Respondents filed a Reply. (Doc. 15.) The Court has considered all of the above. Judge Willett correctly conclu
Summary: ORDER JOHN J. TUCHI , District Judge . At issue is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 13) entered in this matter by United States Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett, which recommends the Court deny and dismiss with prejudice the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 (Doc. 4). Petitioner timely filed an Objection (Doc. 14) to the R&R, and Respondents filed a Reply. (Doc. 15.) The Court has considered all of the above. Judge Willett correctly conclud..
More
ORDER
JOHN J. TUCHI, District Judge.
At issue is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 13) entered in this matter by United States Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett, which recommends the Court deny and dismiss with prejudice the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 4). Petitioner timely filed an Objection (Doc. 14) to the R&R, and Respondents filed a Reply. (Doc. 15.) The Court has considered all of the above.
Judge Willett correctly concluded that Ground Two of the Petition presents a challenge to the Arizona State court's application of state laws. That claim is not cognizable in a habeas proceeding under Section 2254. It must be dismissed, as Judge Willett recommends in the R&R. She also is correct that Grounds One and Three fail on the merits. In the R&R, Judge Willett marshals the applicable law demonstrating that Petitioner's double jeopardy argument, which underlies both grounds, is without merit. Because the analysis already is set forth clearly and succinctly in the R&R, the Court wil not repeat it here.
As Respondents note in their Reply, Petitioner's Objection merely makes general assertions of fact contrary to those found by the state court at any level and not unreasonably found, and then repeats general arguments and propositions unbound to specific points of fact. This is insufficient to prevail on the merits.
IT IS ORDERED overruling the Objection (Doc. 14) and adopting the R&R (Doc. 13).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying and dismissing with prejudice the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 4). 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 Two 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 Three, Petitioner cannot make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
