Jayson Matheaw Schimmel v. William Knipp et al

Filing 33

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. The Court finds that Petitioner has not made asubstantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and therefore, a certificate of appealability is denied. (See document for further details). (sbou)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JAYSON MATHEAW SCHIMMEL,
Petitioner,

11
12
13
14

v.
WILLIAM KNIPP,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. CV 13-8340-PSG (PJW)
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

15
16

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the

17

Petition, the records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of

18

the United States Magistrate Judge.

19

a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner

20

and Respondent have objected.

21

the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge

22

with the following exception.

23

Further, the Court has engaged in

The Court accepts the Report and adopts

At page 21 of the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge

24

analyzed Petitioner’s claim that the trial court erred in instructing

25

the jury about prior crimes evidence.

26

that, because the California Supreme Court had denied this claim

27

without comment, the Court would review it to determine whether the

28

denial of the claim was “objectively unreasonable,” citing Himes v.

The Magistrate Judge concluded

1

Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 853 (9th Cir. 2003).

Applying that standard,

2

the Magistrate Judge concluded that the claim was without merit.

3

Since Himes, however, the United States Supreme Court has made

4

clear that federal courts should apply a more deferential standard,

5

reviewing such claims to determine whether there was any reasonable

6

basis for the state court to deny relief.

7

U.S. 86, 98 (2011); see also Hein v. Sullivan, 601 F.3d 897, 905 (9th

8

Cir. 2010).

9

Petitioner is not entitled to relief.

10

Harrington v. Richter, 562

Obviously, under this more deferential standard,

Further, for the reasons stated in the Report and

11

Recommendation, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a

12

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and

13

therefore, a certificate of appealability is denied.

14

§ 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

15

322, 336 (2003).

See 28 U.S.C.

16
17

DATED:

08/24/2015

.

18
19
20

PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C:\Users\imartine\AppData\Local\Temp\notesC7A056\13-8340.ORD.wpd

2