Baze v. Haynes

Full title: TRAVIS C. BAZE, Petitioner, v. RON HAYNES, Respondent.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

Date published: Jan 24, 2019

CASE NO. C17-5706 RJB (W.D. Wash. Jan. 24, 2019)

Opinion

CASE NO. C17-5706 RJB

01-24-2019

TRAVIS C. BAZE, Petitioner, v. RON HAYNES, Respondent.

ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the Honorable Theresa L. Fricke, United States Magistrate Judge, Dkt. 19, and Petitioner Travis Baze's ("Baze") objections to the R&R, Dkt. 20.

On October 23, 2018, Judge Fricke issued the R&R recommending that the Court deny Baze's petition on the merits and deny a certificate of appealability. Dkt. 19. On November 6, 2018, Baze filed objections. Dkt. 20.

The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

In this case, Baze fails to show any error in the R&R. Although he objects to the R&R, he "stands on his original petition" and essentially disagrees with the R&R. Dkt. 20 at 7. The sole issue in this petition is whether a juror was biased. The trial court specifically questioned one juror to clarify whether the juror made a biased statement regarding drugs. Baze contends that the trial court questioned the wrong juror. The state appellate courts denied Baze's claim as too speculative to undermine the trial court's actions. On federal habeas review, Baze faces an extremely high burden to establish that the state court's finding of fact was an unreasonable determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Baze fails to meet this burden because he continues to rely on speculation that the trial court questioned the wrong juror about bias. Additional speculation does not establish that the state court made an unreasonable determination regarding speculation. Therefore, the Court having considered the R&R, Baze's objections, and the remaining record, does hereby find and order as follows:

(1) The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 19) is ADOPTED;

(2) Baze's petition is DENIED on the merits;

(3) Baze is DENIED a certificate of appealability; and

(4) The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case.

Dated this 24^th day of January, 2019.

/s/_________

ROBERT J. BRYAN

United States District Judge