Coriz v. Rodriguez, CIV 17-1258 JB\KBM
| Decision Date | 05 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 17-1258 JB\KBM,CIV 17-1258 JB\KBM |
| Citation | 350 F.Supp.3d 1044 |
| Parties | Daniel E. CORIZ, Petitioner, v. Victor RODRIGUEZ, Acting Warden Sandoval County Detention Center, Sandoval County New Mexico, Robert B. Coriz, Tribal Court Judge and Governor for the Pueblo of Kewa, and Kewa Pueblo (also known as Santo Domingo Pueblo), Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
Barbara Louise Creel, University of New Mexico School of Law, Southwest Indian Law Clinic, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Petitioner
Heather Renee Smallwood, Sandoval County, Bernalillo, New Mexico, Attorney for Respondent Victor Rodriguez
Cynthia A. Kiersnowski, Leger Law & Strategy, LLC, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Attorneys for Respondent Robert B. Coriz
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge Molzen's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition on Petitioner's Motion to Substitute the Current Governor as the Successive Officer in the Above-Captioned Case, filed June 7, 2018 (Doc. 34)("PFRD"). On June 21, 2018, Petitioner Daniel E. Coriz filed objections to the PFRD. See Petitioner Coriz's Objections to Proposed Finds of Fact and Recommended Disposition (Doc. 36)("Objections"). The Court will overrule the Objections and adopt the PFRD.
D. Coriz filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1303, filed December 22, 2017 (Doc. 1)("Petition"), which names Respondent Robert B. Coriz, in both his official capacity as Tribal Court Judge and Governor of the Kewa Pueblo, as a Respondent. See Petition at 1. R. Coriz is no longer the Governor of the Kewa Pueblo, and D. Coriz now wishes to substitute the current Governor, Thomas Moquino, Jr., as a Respondent. See Motion to Substitute the Current Governor as the Successive Officer in the Above-Captioned Case at 1, filed May 1, 2018 (Doc. 25)("Motion").
The Court referred this case to the Honorable Karen B. Molzen, United States Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, on April 5, 2018, to conduct hearings, if warranted, including evidentiary hearings, and to perform any legal analysis required to recommend to the Court an ultimate disposition of the case. See Order of Reference Relating to Prisoner Cases at 1, filed April 5, 2018 (Doc. 16). Magistrate Judge Molzen issued her PFRD on June 7, 2018 in which she recommends granting the Motion in part and denying it in part. See PFRD at 4. She recommends that: (i) the Court substitute Moquino, in his official capacity as Governor of the Kewa Pueblo, in place of R. Coriz, in his official capacity as Governor of the Kewa Pueblo; (ii) R. Coriz remain a respondent in his official capacity as Tribal Court Judge; and (iii) the Court dismiss Respondent Kewa Pueblo. See PFRD at 4.
District courts may refer dispositive motions to a Magistrate Judge for a recommended disposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1) (). Rule 72(b)(2) governs objections: "Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." Finally, when resolving objections to a Magistrate Judge's proposal,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 636 provides:
A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
" ‘The filing of objections to a magistrate [judge's] report enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues -- factual and legal -- that are at the heart of the parties' dispute.’ " United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., with Bldgs., Appurtenances, Improvements, & Contents, 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996) ("One Parcel")(quoting Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985) ). As the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has noted, "the filing of objections advances the interests that underlie the Magistrate's Act, including judicial efficiency." One Parcel, 73 F.3d at 1059.
The Tenth Circuit has held "that a party's objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review." One Parcel, 73 F.3d at 1060. "To further advance the policies behind the Magistrate's Act,1 [the Tenth Circuit], like numerous other circuits, have adopted a firm waiver rule that provides that the failure to make timely objections to the magistrate [judge's] findings or recommendations waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions." One Parcel, 73 F.3d at 1059 (citations omitted). In addition to requiring specificity in objections, the Tenth Circuit has stated that "[i]ssues raised for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation are deemed waived." Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996). See United States v. Garfinkle, 261 F.3d 1030, 1031 (10th Cir. 2001) (). In an unpublished opinion, the Tenth Circuit stated that "the district court correctly held that [a petitioner] had waived [an] argument by failing to raise it before the magistrate [judge]." Pevehouse v. Scibana, 229 F. App'x 795, 796 (10th Cir. 2007).
In One Parcel, the Tenth Circuit, in accord with other courts of appeals, expanded the waiver rule to cover objections that are timely but too general. See One Parcel, 73 F.3d at 1060. The Supreme Court of the United States of America -- in the course of approving the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit's use of the waiver rule -- noted:
It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings. The House and Senate Reports accompanying the 1976 amendments do not expressly consider what sort of review the district court should perform when no party objects to the magistrate's report. See S. Rep. No. 94-625, pp. 9–10 (1976)(hereafter Senate Report); H.R. Rep. No. 94-1609, p. 11 (1976), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1976, p. 6162 (hereafter House Report). There is nothing in those Reports, however, that demonstrates an intent to require the district court to give any more consideration to the magistrate's report than the court considers appropriate. Moreover, the Subcommittee that drafted and held hearings on the 1976 amendments had before it the guidelines of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts concerning the efficient use of magistrates. Those guidelines recommended to the district courts that "[w]here a magistrate makes a finding or ruling on a motion or an issue, his determination should become that of the district court, unless specific objection is filed within a reasonable time." See Jurisdiction of United States Magistrates, Hearings on S. 1283 before the Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 24 (1975)(emphasis added)(hereafter Senate Hearings). The Committee also heard Judge Metzner of the Southern District of New York, the chairman of a Judicial Conference Committee on the administration of the magistrate system, testify that he personally followed that practice. See id., at 11 ( ). The Judicial Conference of the United States, which supported the de novo standard of review eventually incorporated in § 636(b)(1)(C), opined that in most instances no party would object to the magistrate's recommendation, and the litigation would terminate with the judge's adoption of the magistrate's report. See Senate Hearings, at 35, 37. Congress apparently assumed, therefore, that any party who was dissatisfied for any reason with the magistrate's report would file objections, and those objections would trigger district court review. There is no indication that Congress, in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate's report to which no objections are filed. It did not preclude treating the failure to object as a procedural default, waiving the right to further consideration of any sort. We thus find nothing in the statute or the legislative history that convinces us that Congress intended to forbid a rule such as the one adopted by the Sixth Circuit.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. at 150–52, 106 S.Ct. 466 (emphasis in original)(footnotes omitted).
The Tenth Circuit also noted, "however, that ‘[t]he waiver rule as a procedural bar need not be applied when the interests of justice so dictate.’ " One Parcel, 73 F.3d at 1060 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial