SHAKUR v. RYAN, CV 11-02169-PHX-FJM. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20120405956
Visitors: 6
Filed: Apr. 03, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 03, 2012
Summary: ORDER FREDERICK J. MARTONE, District Judge. The court has before it petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 (doc. 1), respondents' response (doc. 11), and petitioner's reply (doc. 13). We also have the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending that the petition be denied (doc. 14). Petitioner did not object to the report and recommendation, and the time for doing so has expired. After review, we accept the recommendation o
Summary: ORDER FREDERICK J. MARTONE, District Judge. The court has before it petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 (doc. 1), respondents' response (doc. 11), and petitioner's reply (doc. 13). We also have the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending that the petition be denied (doc. 14). Petitioner did not object to the report and recommendation, and the time for doing so has expired. After review, we accept the recommendation of..
More
ORDER
FREDERICK J. MARTONE, District Judge.
The court has before it petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. 1), respondents' response (doc. 11), and petitioner's reply (doc. 13). We also have the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending that the petition be denied (doc. 14). Petitioner did not object to the report and recommendation, and the time for doing so has expired. After review, we accept the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Rule 8(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).1
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED ACCEPTING the report and recommendation (doc. 14) and DENYING petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING a certificate of appealability because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The Clerk shall enter judgment.
FootNotes
1. After the report and recommendation was filed, the Supreme Court decided Martinez v. Ryan, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2012 WL 912950 (Mar. 20, 2012). Martinez does not alter the analysis in this case, however, because petitioner raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in his state action for post-conviction relief that was decided on the merits. The magistrate judge did not conclude that petitioner procedurally defaulted on this claim, but rather determined that the state court's denial of relief was neither clearly contrary to nor an unreasonable application of federal law.
Source: Leagle
