Green v. Unknown Party

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Jahmal Green, No. CV 22-131-TUC-JAS (LCK) 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Warden of USP-Tucson, 13 Respondent.

15 DISCUSSION 16 As a threshold matter, the record reflects that after all the briefing, Report and Recommendation, objections, and response thereto were completed in this case (see Docs.

18 1 through 22), the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion that impacts the issues in this case. See Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023). A review of the relevant record, authority, and particularly Jones reflects that Jones forecloses any relief in this case for Petitioner, and therefore Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition denied. See Jones, 599 U.S. 465, 476- 480 (2023) (“We now hold that the saving clause does not authorize such an end-run around AEDPA. In § 2255(h), Congress enumerated two—and only two—conditions in which a second or successive § 2255 motion may proceed. Because § 2255 is the ordinary vehicle for a collateral attack on a federal sentence, the straightforward negative inference from § 2255(h) is that a second or successive collateral attack on a federal sentence is not authorized unless one of those two conditions is satisfied . . . Even more directly, § 2255(h)(2)’s authorization of a successive collateral attack based on new rules ‘of constitutional law’ implies that Congress did not authorize successive collateral attacks based on new rules of nonconstitutional law. Had Congress wished to omit the word ‘constitutional,’ it easily could have done so . . . Here, as often is the case, the best interpretation is the straightforward one. Section 2255(h) specifies the two limited conditions in which Congress has permitted federal prisoners to bring second or successive collateral attacks on their sentences. The inability of a prisoner with a statutory claim to satisfy those conditions does not mean that he can bring his claim in a habeas petition under the saving clause. It means that he cannot bring it at all. Congress has chosen finality over error correction in his case.”) (emphasis in the original).

10 In the alternative, assuming arguendo, that Jones did not impact the issues in this case, the Court also agrees with the Report and Recommendation that Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition must be denied as discussed therein. The Court has reviewed the entire record in this case (see Docs. 1 through 22) and the relevant legal authority bearing on this case. As noted above, Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation and the Government responded to those objections.1 16 As a threshold matter, as to any new evidence, arguments, and issues that were not timely and properly raised before United States Magistrate Judge Kimmins, the Court exercises its discretion to not consider those matters and considers them waived.2 See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-623 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A] district court has discretion, but is not required, to consider evidence presented for the first time in a party's 1 Unless otherwise noted by the Court, internal quotes and citations have been omitted when citing authority throughout this Order.

22 2 As a general matter, the Court notes that it has had numerous problems with parties in many cases attempting to raise new issues that could have been raised before the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court does not abide such actions, and allowing such actions undermines the Court’s ability to properly manage the hundreds of cases pending before the Court. See United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 435 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2023) (“Ramos's motion for reconsideration argued that the district court failed to conduct de novo review because the order adopting the report and recommendation stated that ‘as to any new ... arguments ... not timely ... raised before [the magistrate judge], the Court exercises its discretion to not consider those matters and considers them waived” even though, according to Ramos, the case raised no waiver issue. But this argument misses the point.

27 The fact that the order contained extraneous language does not negate the district court's multiple assertions that it conducted de novo review and the magistrate judge's proper analysis in recommending denial of the motion to suppress.”).

1 objection to a magistrate judge's recommendation . . . [I]n making a decision on whether to consider newly offered evidence, the district court must . . . exercise its discretion . . .

3 [I]n providing for a de novo determination rather than de novo hearing, Congress intended to permit whatever reliance a district judge, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, chose to place on a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations . . . The magistrate judge system was designed to alleviate the workload of district courts . . . To require a district court to consider evidence not previously presented to the magistrate judge would effectively nullify the magistrate judge's consideration of the matter and would not help to relieve the workload of the district court. Systemic efficiencies would be frustrated and the magistrate judge's role reduced to that of a mere dress rehearser if a party were allowed to feint and weave at the initial hearing, and save its knockout punch for the second round . . . Equally important, requiring the district court to hear evidence not previously presented to the magistrate judge might encourage sandbagging. [I]t would be fundamentally unfair to permit a litigant to set its case in motion before the magistrate, wait to see which way the wind was blowing, and—having received an unfavorable recommendation—shift gears before the district judge.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Finally, it merits re-emphasis that the underlying purpose of the Federal Magistrates Act is to improve the effective administration of justice.”).

20 Assuming that there has been no waiver, the Court has conducted a de novo review as to Petitioner’s objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“Within fourteen days after being served with [the Report and Recommendation], any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.

24 A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).

1 In addition to reviewing the Report and Recommendation and any objections and responsive briefing thereto, the Court’s de novo review includes review of the record and authority before United States Magistrate Judge Kimmins which led to the Report and Recommendation in this case.

5 Upon de novo review of the record and pertinent authority, the Court finds Petitioner’s objections to be without merit, rejects those objections, and adopts United States Magistrate Judge Kimmins’ Report and Recommendation. See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez, 888 F.2d 519, 522 (7th Cir. 1989) (“Rodriguez is entitled by statute to de novo review of the subject. Under Raddatz [447 U.S. 667 (1980)] the court may provide this on the record compiled by the magistrate. Rodriguez treats adoption of the magistrate's report as a sign that he has not received his due. Yet we see no reason to infer abdication from adoption. On occasion this court affirms a judgment on the basis of the district court's opinion. Affirming by adoption does not imply that we have neglected our duties; it means, rather, that after independent review we came to the same conclusions as the district judge for the reasons that judge gave, rendering further explanation otiose. When the district judge, after reviewing the record in the light of the objections to the report, reaches the magistrate's conclusions for the magistrate's reasons, it makes sense to adopt the report, sparing everyone another round of paper.”); Bratcher v. Bray-Doyle Independent School Dist. No. 42 of Stephens County, Okl., 8 F.3d 722, 724 (10th Cir. 1993) (“De novo review is statutorily and constitutionally required when written objections to a magistrate's report are timely filed with the district court . . . The district court's duty in this regard is satisfied only by considering the actual testimony [or other relevant evidence in the record], and not by merely reviewing the magistrate's report and recommendations . . . On the other hand, we presume the district court knew of these requirements, so the express references to de novo review in its order must be taken to mean it properly considered the pertinent portions of the record, absent some clear indication otherwise . . . Plaintiff contends . . . the district court's [terse] order indicates the exercise of less than de novo review . . . [However,] brevity does not warrant look[ing] behind a district court's express statement that it engaged in a de novo review of the record.”); Murphy v. International Business Machines Corp., 23 2 F.3d 719, 722 (2nd Cir. 1994) (“We . . . reject Murphy's procedural challenges to the granting of summary judgment . . . Murphy's contention that the district judge did not properly consider her objections to the magistrate judge's report . . . lacks merit. The judge's brief order mentioned that objections had been made and overruled. We do not construe the brevity of the order as an indication that the objections were not given due consideration, especially in light of the correctness of that report and the evident lack of merit in Murphy's objections.”); Gonzales-Perez v. Harper, 241 F.3d 633 (8th Cir. 2001) (“When a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court is required to make a de novo review of the record related to the objections, which requires more than merely reviewing the report and recommendation . . . This court presumes that the district court properly performs its review and will affirm the district court's approval of the magistrate's recommendation absent evidence to the contrary . . .

14 The burden is on the challenger to make a prima facie case that de novo review was not had.”); Brunig v. Clark, 560 F.3d 292, 295 (5th Cir. 2009) (“Brunig also claims that the district court judge did not review the magistrate's report de novo . . . There is no evidence that the district court did not conduct a de novo review. Without any evidence to the contrary . . . we will not assume that the district court did not conduct the proper review.”).3 3 See also Pinkston v. Madry, 440 F.3d 879, 893-894 (7th Cir. 2006) (“the district court's assurance, in a written order, that the court has complied with the de novo review requirements of the statute in reviewing the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendation is sufficient, in all but the most extraordinary of cases, to resist assault on appeal”; emphasizing that “[i]t is clear that Pinkston's argument in this regard is nothing more than a collateral attack on the magistrate's reasoning, masquerading as an assault on the district court's entirely acceptable decision to adopt the magistrate's opinion . . .”); Garcia v. City of Albuquerque, 232 F.3d 760 (10th Cir. 2000) (“The district court's order is terse . . . However, neither 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) nor Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) requires the district court to make any specific findings; the district court must merely conduct a de novo review of the record . . . It is common practice among district judges . . . to [issue a terse order stating that it conducted a de novo review as to objections] . . . and adopt the magistrate judges' recommended dispositions when they find that magistrate judges have dealt with the issues fully and accurately and that they could add little of value to that analysis. We cannot interpret the district court's [terse] statement as establishing that it failed to perform the required de novo review . . . We hold that although the district court's decision is terse, this is insufficient to demonstrate that the court failed to review the magistrate's recommendation de novo.”); Goffman v. Gross, 59 F.3d 668, 671 (7th Cir. 1995) (“The district court is required to conduct a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge's report and recommendations to which objections have been filed.

CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 3 (1) Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition is denied in light of Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 4 (2023).

5 (2) In the alternative, assuming arguendo, that Jones is inapplicable, United States 6 Magistrate Judge Kimmins’ Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20) is accepted and 7 adopted.

8 (3) Petitioner’s objections are rejected.

9 (4) Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition is denied.

10 (5) This case is dismissed with prejudice.

11 (6) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file in this case.

13 Dated this 12th day of March, 2025. testes Honorable James A. Soto 19 United States District Judge But this de novo determination is not the same as a de novo hearing . . . [I]f following a review of the record the district court is satisfied with the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations it may in its discretion treat those findings and recommendations as its 28 own.”).

-6-