United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 2022

Alavez v. Shinn

Alavez v. Shinn
United States District Court for the District of Arizona · Decided September 26, 2022
Alavez v. Shinn

Trial Court Opinion

7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Damaso Alavez, ) 10 ) Petitioner, ) 11 ) No. CIV 19-498-TUC-CKJ (BGM) vs. ) 12 ) David Shinn, et al., ) ORDER 13 ) Respondents. ) 14 ) 15 On April 12, 2022, Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) in which he recommends the Court dismiss with prejudice the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Non-Death Penalty) (“Petition”) (Doc. 1) filed by Petitioner Damasco Alavez ("Alavez") be denied as untimely.

20 The Report and Recommendation advised the parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 21 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2), any party may serve and file written objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. No objections have been filed within the time provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After an independent review, the Court finds it is appropriate to adopt the Report and Recommendation and deny the Petition as untimely.

26 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 27 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) is ADOPTED.

28 2. The Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person || in State Custody (Non-Death Penalty) (“Petition”) (Doc. 1) is DENIED.

2 3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and shall then close its file in this |) matter.

4 4. Pursuant to Rule 1 1(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event || Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because || reasonable jurists could not "debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition || should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate || to deserve encouragement to proceed further'." See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 || (2000); see also Close v. Thomas, 653 F.3d 970, 974 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2011) ("COA is not || required to appeal the denial of a § 2241 petition filed by a person in federal custody").

11 DATED this 26th day of September, 2022.

A. ig L On gorsnore?

14 Cindy K. Jor§€énso 15 United States District Judge 28 _2-

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.