Melvin Williams, Jr. v. Ryan Thornell, et al.

D. Arizona

Melvin Williams, Jr. v. Ryan Thornell, et al.

DecidedJanuary 14, 2026

Docket2:25-cv-00980

StatusUnknown

This text of Melvin Williams, Jr. v. Ryan Thornell, et al. (Melvin Williams, Jr. v. Ryan Thornell, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Melvin Williams, Jr. v. Ryan Thornell, et al., (D. Ariz. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

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

9 Melvin Williams, Jr., No. CV-25-00980-PHX-GMS

10 Petitioner, ORDER and 11 v. DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILILTY AND IN FORMA 12 Ryan Thornell, et al., PAUPERIS STATUS

13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 16 Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle (Doc. 16). The R&R recommends that Petitioner’s 17 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties 18 that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 11 (citing Fed. R. Civ. 19 P. 6, 72 and United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner 20 filed objections on October 22, 2025 (Doc. 17). No reply to Petitioner’s Objections has 21 been filed. 22 The R&R summarizes that Petitioner presents three grounds for relief in the Petition 23 and that Petitioner’s claims are procedurally defaulted because he did not raise them on 24 direct appeal and they were precluded from review on post-conviction relief. The R&R 25 further states Petitioner presents no cause and prejudice to excuse the procedural default of 26 his claims and that Petitioner would not be entitled to relief on any of his claims. (Doc. 27 16, p.1) 28 In his objections, Mr. Williams asserts he was deprived of his constitutional 1 protection by “…the affidavit for the search warrant was not in the record therefore 2 depriving Mr. Williams of the right to defend against all accusation.”. (Doc. 17, p. 4). 3 Petitioner further asserts he was never taken before the magistrate judge to determine 4 probable cause from the events which occurred leading up to the stop or search. (Id.). 5 However, as the R&R sets forth, Petitioner’s claims are unexhausted because they were 6 not raised on direct appeal and subsequently precluded from review in PCR proceedings. 7 (Doc. 16, pp. 4-8). 8 Mr. Williams continues to raise arguments that have been addressed at the trial court 9 level, in PCR Proceedings, by Direct Appeal and the instant federal habeas proceeding. 10 Petitioner further objects to the R&R asserting that the Arizona Court of Appeals 11 erred, alleging there was a conflict of interest with the appellate attorney when the appellate 12 attorney refused to raise issues that Petitioner wanted raised but was denied the request by 13 his counsel. Petitioner asserts counsel was ineffective for not raising material issues and 14 that counsel lied to defendant that the search warrant is not part of the record and that 15 Petitioner was indicted on this case. As the R&R sets forth, the Arizona Court of Appeals 16 affirmed the convictions and sentences. 17 Mr. Williams’ objections to the denial of his arguments fail because they are merely 18 a repetition of arguments he has previously made. The R&R did not err in recommending 19 denial of Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 20 The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determinations. Williams’ objections 21 do not refute the resulting conclusions of the R&R. 22 The Court thus accepts the recommended decision within the meaning of Rule 23 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner’s objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 24 (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 25 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”). 26 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 27 (Doc. 16) is accepted. 28 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying 2|| Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 3 || 1) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 4 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 5 || Courts requires the district court to “issue or a deny a certificate of appealability when it || enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11,28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. A certificate 7\| of appealability is denied because Mr. Williams he has not made the requisite showing of 8 || the denial of a constitutional right. 9 Dated this 13th day of January, 2026.

12 Senior United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

9 Melvin Williams, Jr., No. CV-25-00980-PHX-GMS

10 Petitioner, ORDER and 11 v. DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILILTY AND IN FORMA 12 Ryan Thornell, et al., PAUPERIS STATUS

13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 16 Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle (Doc. 16). The R&R recommends that Petitioner’s 17 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties 18 that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 11 (citing Fed. R. Civ. 19 P. 6, 72 and United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner 20 filed objections on October 22, 2025 (Doc. 17). No reply to Petitioner’s Objections has 21 been filed. 22 The R&R summarizes that Petitioner presents three grounds for relief in the Petition 23 and that Petitioner’s claims are procedurally defaulted because he did not raise them on 24 direct appeal and they were precluded from review on post-conviction relief. The R&R 25 further states Petitioner presents no cause and prejudice to excuse the procedural default of 26 his claims and that Petitioner would not be entitled to relief on any of his claims. (Doc. 27 16, p.1) 28 In his objections, Mr. Williams asserts he was deprived of his constitutional 1 protection by “…the affidavit for the search warrant was not in the record therefore 2 depriving Mr. Williams of the right to defend against all accusation.”. (Doc. 17, p. 4). 3 Petitioner further asserts he was never taken before the magistrate judge to determine 4 probable cause from the events which occurred leading up to the stop or search. (Id.). 5 However, as the R&R sets forth, Petitioner’s claims are unexhausted because they were 6 not raised on direct appeal and subsequently precluded from review in PCR proceedings. 7 (Doc. 16, pp. 4-8). 8 Mr. Williams continues to raise arguments that have been addressed at the trial court 9 level, in PCR Proceedings, by Direct Appeal and the instant federal habeas proceeding. 10 Petitioner further objects to the R&R asserting that the Arizona Court of Appeals 11 erred, alleging there was a conflict of interest with the appellate attorney when the appellate 12 attorney refused to raise issues that Petitioner wanted raised but was denied the request by 13 his counsel. Petitioner asserts counsel was ineffective for not raising material issues and 14 that counsel lied to defendant that the search warrant is not part of the record and that 15 Petitioner was indicted on this case. As the R&R sets forth, the Arizona Court of Appeals 16 affirmed the convictions and sentences. 17 Mr. Williams’ objections to the denial of his arguments fail because they are merely 18 a repetition of arguments he has previously made. The R&R did not err in recommending 19 denial of Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 20 The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determinations. Williams’ objections 21 do not refute the resulting conclusions of the R&R. 22 The Court thus accepts the recommended decision within the meaning of Rule 23 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner’s objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 24 (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 25 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”). 26 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 27 (Doc. 16) is accepted. 28 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying 2|| Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 3 || 1) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 4 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 5 || Courts requires the district court to “issue or a deny a certificate of appealability when it || enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11,28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. A certificate 7\| of appealability is denied because Mr. Williams he has not made the requisite showing of 8 || the denial of a constitutional right. 9 Dated this 13th day of January, 2026.

12 Senior United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Melvin Williams, Jr. v. Ryan Thornell, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melvin-williams-jr-v-ryan-thornell-et-al-azd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack