Trejo v. Shinn

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: February 4, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01119
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8

Benny Genaro Trejo, ) No. CV-19-01119-PHX-SPL ) 9 ) 10 Petitioner, ) ORDER v. ) ) 11 ) David Shinn, et al., ) 12 ) 13 Respondents. ) ) 14 )

15 The Court has before it, Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 16 § 2254 (Doc. 1), and the Answer from the Respondents. (Doc. 7) Additionally, the Court 17 is in receipt of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 8), 18 Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 14), and the Response to the Objections. (Doc. 15) 19 In the instant Petition, the Petitioner alleges the trial court improperly denied his 20 motion to change counsel. (Doc. 1 at 100-103) After the Petitioner started representing 21 himself, the Petitioner further alleges the trial court improperly denied his motion to 22 continue. (Id.) Additionally, the Petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel. (Id. at 23 104-110) 24 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 25 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). When a party files a 26 timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R 27 that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires 28 specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United 1 States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). It 2 follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific 3 objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 4 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial 5 economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or 6 arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and the Court’s 7 decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622 8 (9th Cir. 2000). 9 The Court has carefully undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently 10 developed record of the state court proceedings, without a need for an evidentiary hearing. 11 The Petitioner’s objections to the findings and recommendations have also been thoroughly 12 considered. 13 After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches 14 the same conclusions reached by Judge Willett. Having carefully reviewed the record, the 15 State of Arizona has, on the case merits, adjudicated all the grounds for relief in the petition. 16 The R&R will be adopted in full. Accordingly, 17 IT IS ORDERED: 18 1. That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 8) is 19 accepted and adopted by the Court; 20 2. That the request for an evidentiary hearing is denied. 21 3. That the Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 14) are overruled; 22 4. That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied and this action 23 is dismissed with prejudice; 24 5. That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis 25 on appeal are denied because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial 26 of a constitutional right in his claims for relief; and 27 /// 28 /// 1 6. That the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action. 3 Dated this 4th day of February 2020. 4

6 United States District kudge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28