Opinion
CV-22-01262-PHX-SRB
09-20-2023
Tilfert Darrell Vaughn, Petitioner, v. David Shinn, et al., Respondents.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
ORDER
Susan R. Bolton, United States District Judge
Petitioner, Tilfert Vaughn filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on July 28, 2022 raising five grounds for relief. Respondents filed an Answer arguing that Grounds One, Two, Three and Five were not cognizable federal claims because Petitioner had not argued a federal basis for these claims in state court and, therefore, procedurally defaulted these claims. As to Ground Four, Respondents argue that the claims raised in Ground Four should be denied on the merits. Petitioner also filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Amend Habeas Petition on June 5, 2023, to which Respondents responded in opposition.
The Magistrate Judge issued her Report and Recommendation on July 14, 2023 recommending the denial of the Motion for Leave of Court to Amend Habeas Petition, recommending the denial of Grounds One, Two, Three and Five because they were unexhausted, procedurally defaulted and not cognizable on federal habeas review and recommending the denial of the ineffective assistance of trial counsel raised in Ground Four. After receiving an extension of time, Petitioner filed his Objections on August 28, 2023. Respondents filed a Response to the Objections on September 6, 2023.
While Petitioner's Objections mention the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to deny his Motion for Leave of Court to Amend Habeas Petition, Petitioner makes no specific objection to this recommendation or argument about an error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis. The Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and her reasoning for denial of the Motion for Leave of Court to Amend Habeas Petition.
Petitioner does specifically address each of his five grounds for relief in his Objections but fails to explain how the Magistrate Judge erred in her analysis and conclusions. Instead, Petitioner makes the same arguments that he made in his Petition and Reply. These re-arguments raise nothing to cast doubt on the Magistrate Judge's careful analysis of the facts and law supporting her conclusions that Grounds One, Two, Three and Five are unexhausted, procedurally defaulted and not cognizable on federal habeas review. The Court agrees with and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation addressing these four grounds.
Petitioner's exhausted Ground 4 which raised four claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is also reargued in his Objections. Nothing in the Objections addresses any flaws in the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that each of the four bases for the claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel were rejected by the state court and those decisions were not objectively unreasonable and therefore habeas relief must be denied. Petitioner failed to show that the state court's rejection of his claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), or based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.
IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 30)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as the order of this Court. (Doc. 27)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner's Motion for Leave of Court to Amend Habeas Petition. (Doc. 24)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody and dismissing it with prejudice. (Doc. 1)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because Petitioner has not shown jurists of reason would find the procedural ruling debatable and because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.