Mendoza v. Shinn ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Carlos Rafael Mendoza, No. CV-18-347-TUC-FRZ 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 David Shinn, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 16 Petitioner Carlos Rafael Mendoza filed a pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 17 for Writ of Habeas Corpus on July 16, 2018, raising four grounds for relief. 18 The case was referred to Magistrate Eric J. Markovich for all pretrial proceedings 19 and report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1) and LRCiv 72.1 and LRCiv 72.2 of the Rules of Practice of the United States 21 District Court for the District of Arizona, Local Rules of Civil Procedure. 22 Magistrate Judge Markovich issued his Report and Recommendation on August 23 27, 2020, recommending that the petition be denied, and the action dismissed based on 24 the finding that the petition for habeas relief is untimely and Petitioner has not shown that 25 he is entitled to equitable tolling. 26 Before the Court for consideration are the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 27 (Doc. 1); the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20); Petitioner’s objection (Doc. 23); 28 Respondent's response in opposition (Doc. 26); and Petitioner's reply (Doc. 27). 1 The Report and Recommedation provides a thorough factual and procedural || history and an in-depth analyis of the issues presented. 3 Upon an independent review of the pleadings, the Report and Recommendation, 4|| the objection thereto, and the administrative record, the Court agrees with the findings of 5 || Magistrate Judge Markovich and shall adopt the findings of the Magistrate Judge as the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Accordingly, 7 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20) is hereby || ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court; 10 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a 11 |} Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED and this cause of action is dismissed with prejudice; 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter || judgment accordingly. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability shall not issue, || based on this Court's finding that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the || denial of a federal constitutional right, and jurists of reason would not find the Court’s 18 || assessment of Petitioner’s constitutional claims “debatable or wrong.” See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 20 21 Dated this 18th day of December, 2020. 22 ak k Be GG □ 24 Honorable Evank’R. Zapata 25 Senior United States District Judge 26 27 28 _2-