Adam Abel Chavez v. Ryan Thornell, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona adopts a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and denies Adam Abel Chavez’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. The court denies certain claims on the merits, dismisses others as noncognizable, and finds additional claims procedurally defaulted. The court also denies an evidentiary hearing, a certificate of appealability, and in forma pauperis status.

Holdings

1. Objections that merely relitigate issues raised before the magistrate judge or state courts, rely on conclusory assertions, or fail to identify an error in the Report and Recommendation do not trigger de novo review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2. A federal habeas court may not grant relief unless the state court's application of Strickland was unreasonable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); it is not enough that the federal court would have applied Strickland differently in the first instance.
3. A federal habeas court is bound by a state court's construction of state law and may not reexamine state-law determinations unless an alleged state-law error rises to the level of a constitutional violation or is untenable.
4. Federal habeas claims that were not fairly presented to the state courts and can no longer be presented there are procedurally defaulted, and claims rejected under an adequate and independent state procedural ground are barred from federal habeas review absent a valid excuse.
5. An evidentiary hearing is not required when the issues can be resolved by reference to the state-court record and the petitioner does not present colorable allegations that would entitle him to federal habeas relief under § 2254's deferential standards.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Chavez's objections were sufficiently specific to trigger de novo review of the challenged portions of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation.
2. Whether the state courts unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington in rejecting Chavez's ineffective-assistance claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
3. Whether the federal claims that Chavez failed to fairly present to the Arizona Court of Appeals were procedurally defaulted.
4. Whether claims rejected by the Arizona courts under independent and adequate state procedural rules, including Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(a)(3), were procedurally barred from federal habeas review.
5. Whether Chavez was entitled to an evidentiary hearing, a writ of habeas corpus, a certificate of appealability, or in forma pauperis status on appeal.

Disposition

other