Bautista v. Ryan, 2:17-cv-00532

Petitioner Luis Alberto Bautista filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his life-without-parole sentence imposed for crimes committed as a juvenile.
Magistrate Judge Boyle issued a Report & Recommendation (R&R) recommending the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice.
Bautista objected to the R&R; the government responded and Bautista replied. The district court reviewed the objections de novo.
Central legal contention: whether Miller v. Alabama required resentencing or whether Arizona’s restoration of parole eligibility under H.B. 2539 cured any Miller error.
Bautista also argued that defects in Arizona’s H.B. 2539 (the parole-eligibility statute) entitled him to resentencing; the Magistrate treated those claims as state-law/post-conviction matters.
The district court adopted the R&R, denied the habeas petition and a stay, dismissed the case with prejudice, and denied a certificate of appealability and in forma pauperis status on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Miller v. Alabama requires resentencing (vs. parole eligibility)	Bautista argued Miller entitles him to resentencing from mandatory life without parole imposed as a juvenile	State argued Montgomery permits remedy by restoring parole eligibility rather than resentencing; Arizona reinstated parole for juvenile lifers via H.B. 2539	Court held Miller does not require resentencing; Arizona’s reinstatement of parole eligibility cured any Miller error — petition denied
Whether defects in H.B. 2539 entitle petitioner to federal habeas relief	Bautista argued infirmities in the statute make his remedy inadequate and require resentencing	State argued statutory defects are matters of state law/post-conviction procedure not cognizable on federal habeas	Court held claims alleging state-law errors in post-conviction proceedings are not redressable via federal habeas; claim is procedurally barred/inapplicable
Whether a certificate of appealability should issue	Bautista argued appeal issues are debatable and warrant COA	State argued dismissal is justified by plain procedural bar and not debatable among reasonable jurists	Court denied a certificate of appealability and IFP on appeal; reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable

Miller v. Alabama, [citation="567 U.S. 460"] (mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment; individualized youth consideration required)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, [citation="136 S. Ct. 718"] (States may remedy Miller violations by making juvenile offenders eligible for parole rather than resentencing)