Williams #078225 v. Thornell et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Melvin Williams, Jr.,
Petitioner,
v.
Ryan Thornell, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-25-00980-PHX-GMS
ORDER
and
DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILILTY AND IN FORMA
PAUPERIS STATUS
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle (Doc. 16). The R&R recommends that Petitioner’s
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties
that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 11 (citing Fed. R. Civ.
P. 6, 72 and United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner
filed objections on October 22, 2025 (Doc. 17). No reply to Petitioner’s Objections has
been filed.
The R&R summarizes that Petitioner presents three grounds for relief in the Petition
and that Petitioner’s claims are procedurally defaulted because he did not raise them on
direct appeal and they were precluded from review on post-conviction relief. The R&R
further states Petitioner presents no cause and prejudice to excuse the procedural default of
his claims and that Petitioner would not be entitled to relief on any of his claims. (Doc.
16, p.1)
In his objections, Mr. Williams asserts he was deprived of his constitutional
Case 2:25-cv-00980-GMS Document 18 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
protection by “…the affidavit for the search warrant was not in the record therefore
depriving Mr. Williams of the right to defend against all accusation.”. (Doc. 17, p. 4).
Petitioner further asserts he was never taken before the magistrate judge to determine
probable cause from the events which occurred leading up to the stop or search. (Id.).
However, as the R&R sets forth, Petitioner’s claims are unexhausted because they were
not raised on direct appeal and subsequently precluded from review in PCR proceedings.
(Doc. 16, pp. 4-8).
Mr. Williams continues to raise arguments that have been addressed at the trial court
level, in PCR Proceedings, by Direct Appeal and the instant federal habeas proceeding.
Petitioner further objects to the R&R asserting that the Arizona Court of Appeals
erred, alleging there was a conflict of interest with the appellate attorney when the appellate
attorney refused to raise issues that Petitioner wanted raised but was denied the request by
his counsel. Petitioner asserts counsel was ineffective for not raising material issues and
that counsel lied to defendant that the search warrant is not part of the record and that
Petitioner was indicted on this case. As the R&R sets forth, the Arizona Court of Appeals
affirmed the convictions and sentences.
Mr. Williams’ objections to the denial of his arguments fail because they are merely
a repetition of arguments he has previously made. The R&R did not err in recommending
denial of Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determinations. Williams’ objections
do not refute the resulting conclusions of the R&R.
The Court thus accepts the recommended decision within the meaning of Rule
72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner’s objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”).
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
(Doc. 16) is accepted.
Case 2:25-cv-00980-GMS Document 18 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc.
1) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action.
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts requires the district court to “issue or a deny a certificate of appealability when it
enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. A certificate
of appealability is denied because Mr. Williams he has not made the requisite showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.
Dated this 13th day of January, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-00980-GMS Document 18 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 3