Frank M Gonzales v. Ryan Thornell, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: November 10, 2025
• Docket: 4:24-cv-00593
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Frank M Gonzales, No. CV-24-00593-TUC-JCH

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Ryan Thornell, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Bruce G. MacDonald’s Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 11) on Petitioner Frank M Gonzales’s Petition for Writ 17 of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). Magistrate Judge MacDonald 18 recommends denying Gonzales’s Petition and dismissing the case with prejudice. (Doc. 19 11.) Neither party objects to the R&R. (See generally Docket.) 20 A district court reviews objected-to portions of an R&R de novo. 28 U.S.C. 21 § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 22 (9th Cir. 1989). Failure to timely object may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to de 23 novo consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 24 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The Court reviews for clear error any unobjected-to 25 portions of the R&R. See Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). 26 The R&R sets forth the applicable statutes and caselaw governing a habeas 27 petitioner’s claim that was decided on the merits in state court. (Doc. 11 at 4–6.) After 28 examining the Arizona Court of Appeals’ decision denying Petitioner’s constitutional law 1 claims, the R&R found Petitioner failed to demonstrate the state appellate decision was 2 contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. (Id. at 5–11.) 3 The R&R also found Petitioner’s new arguments in Reply were procedurally barred 4 because he failed to raise them at state court. (Id. at 10.) 5 After independent review, the Court is satisfied that Magistrate Judge MacDonald’s 6 recommendation is sound. The Court will adopt the R&R in full. 7 Before Petitioner can appeal the Court’s judgment, a certificate of appealability 8 must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). Federal Rule of 9 Appellate Procedure 22(b) requires the district court that rendered the judgment denying 10 the petition to either issue a certificate of appealability or state why a certificate should not 11 issue. 12 A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial 13 showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” § 2253(c)(2). A substantial showing is 14 made when the resolution of an issue on appeal is debatable among reasonable jurists, if 15 courts could resolve the issue differently, or if the issue deserves further proceedings. Slack 16 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). If an issue is decided on procedural grounds, a 17 substantial showing is made if reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the 18 applicant had a valid claim for the denial of a constitutional right and whether the district 19 court was correct in its procedural ruling. Id. at 485. 20 The R&R resolves Petitioner’s issues on both constitutional and procedural 21 grounds. (Doc. 11 at 9–11.) Resolution of the issues addressed in the R&R are not 22 debatable among reasonable jurists, nor do they deserve further proceedings. Considering 23 the standards for granting a certificate of appealability, the Court concludes that a 24 certificate shall not issue. 25 Accordingly, 26 IT IS ORDERED ADOPTING in full the R&R (Doc. 11), DENYING Petitioner 27 Gonzales’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and 28 DISMISSING this matter with prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall docket this matter 1 || accordingly. 2 The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability, finding jurists of 3 || reason would not find this Court’s ruling debatable. 4 Dated this 10th day of November, 2025. 5 6 f 4)

g / / John C. Hinderaker 9 _/United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-