Valle v. Tucson City Court

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: July 14, 2025
• Docket: 4:23-cv-00224
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Michael X. Valle, No. CV-23-00224-TUC-AMM

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Tucson City Court, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 On December 20, 2024, Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this Court deny Petitioner Michael X. Valle’s 17 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 9.) Petitioner filed a timely 18 Objection to the R&R, and Respondent filed a Response. (Docs. 10–11.) For the reasons 19 discussed below, the Court will overrule Petitioner’s objections and adopt the R&R. 20 A district court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is 21 not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 28 22 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those 23 portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 24 objection is made.”). “[T]he court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the 25 face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory 26 Committee Notes 1983 Addition. A district judge may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole 27 or in part, the findings or recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 28 Petitioner alleges that the Arizona state court violated his Sixth Amendment right 1 to an impartial jury when it dismissed a juror for cause based on the juror’s statements 2 going to the merits of the case. (Doc. 1 at 2.) Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge’s 3 determination that (1) his claim is not entitled to de novo review; and (2) his claim is barred 4 by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”).1 (Doc. 10 at 3– 5 9.) Upon de novo review, the Court finds that Petitioner’s objections lack merit. 6 First, AEDPA “restricts the circumstances under which a federal habeas court may 7 grant relief to a state prisoner whose claim has already been ‘adjudicated on the merits.’” 8 Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289, 292 (2013) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)). “When a 9 federal claim has been presented to a state court and the state court has denied relief, it may 10 be presumed that the state court adjudicated the claim on the merits in the absence of any 11 indication or state-law procedural principles to the contrary.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 12 U.S. 86, 99 (2011); Johnson, 568 U.S. at 301 (“When a state court rejects a federal claim 13 without expressly addressing that claim, a federal habeas court must presume that the 14 federal claim was adjudicated on the merits . . . .”). Here, Petitioner presented his Sixth 15 Amendment claim to the Arizona Superior Court and Court of Appeals and the state courts 16 denied his claim.2 As such, the Court must presume that his claim was adjudicated on the 17 merits. 18 Petitioner may only overcome this presumption if “the evidence leads very clearly 19 to the conclusion that a federal claim was inadvertently overlooked in state court . . . .” 20 Johnson, 568 U.S. at 303. Petitioner asserts the state court’s reliance on Arizona Rule of 21 Criminal Procedure (“ARCP”) 18.6(e) (permitting jurors to submit written questions) is 22 contrary to Ninth Circuit precedent that prohibits dismissing a juror for his or her views on 23 the merits of the case. (Doc. 10 at 5 (citing United States v. Symington, 195 F.3d 1080, 24 1 The Court reviewed for clear error the portions of the R&R that Petitioner did not object 25 to, including the factual and procedural background. (See Docs. 9–10.) The Court finds no clear error and will adopt these portions of the R&R. 26 2 Petitioner appealed to the Pima County Superior Court, asserting, inter alia, “that the trial court abused its discretion when it violated his [fe]ederal [Sixth] Amendment right to an 27 impartial jury.” (Doc. 6 at 20.) The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s determination and denied his motion for rehearing. (Docs. 1-4, 1-5.) Petitioner sought special action relief 28 in the Arizona Court of Appeals, which declined jurisdiction. (Doc. 1-6.) The Arizona Supreme Court denied his petition for review. (Doc. 1-8.) 1 1087 (9th Cir. 1999).) However, the Arizona Court of Appeals distinguished the facts of 2 Petitioner’s case from Symington and did not overlook Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment 3 claim. (See Doc. 1-6 at 4 (citing Symington, 195 F.3d at 1085).) Because Petitioner fails to 4 rebut the presumption that his claim was adjudicated on the merits, his claim is not entitled 5 to de novo review. Petitioner’s objection is overruled. 6 Second, Petitioner’s claim is barred by AEDPA because the state court decision is 7 not contrary to clearly established federal law and was not based on an unreasonable 8 application of the facts. Under AEDPA, once a claim has been adjudicated on the merits in 9 state court, a federal habeas court may not grant relief unless: 10 the adjudication of the claim-- (1) resulted in a decision that 11 was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme 12 Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was 13 based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 14 15 28 U.S.C. 2254(d). Because “circuit precedent does not constitute ‘clearly established 16 Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court,’” “[i]t therefore cannot form the basis 17 for habeas relief under AEDPA.” Parker v. Matthews, 567 U.S. 37, 48–49 (2012) (quoting 18 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)). As such, Petitioner’s reliance on the Ninth Circuit’s holding in 19 Symington, 195 F.3d 1080 is unpersuasive, and the Court will overrule Petitioner’s 20 objection. 21 The Court has reviewed the filings in this case, including the Petition (Doc. 1), 22 Response (Doc. 6), Reply (Doc. 7), the R&R (Doc. 9), Petitioner’s Objection (Doc. 10), 23 and Respondent’s Response (Doc. 11). Upon de novo review of the objected to portions of 24 the R&R, and clear error review of the unopposed portions, the Court agrees with the 25 Magistrate Judge’s findings and adopts the R&R. 26 Accordingly, 27 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc. 9.) 28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Michael X. Valle’s Petition for Writ || of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED. (Doc. 1.) 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment || accordingly and close this case. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing || Section 2254 Cases, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because || reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 7\| U.S. 473, 478, 484 (2000). 8 Dated this 14th day of July, 2025. 9 10 bow uct 11 Honorable Angela M. Martinez United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-