Carlos Ramirez v. David B. Long
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge James V. Selna for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 59 . IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered (1) denying the Second Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus; and (2) dismissing this action with prejudice. (See document for further details.) (iva)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. CV 14-2008-JVS (KK)
DAVID B. LONG,
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
Pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code, section 636, the Court has
reviewed the Second Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the records
on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge. The Court has engaged in de novo review of those portions of the Report to
which Petitioner has objected. The Court accepts the findings and
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
To the extent Petitioner also requests an evidentiary hearing in his objections
to the Report, in habeas proceedings, “an evidentiary hearing is not required on
issues that can be resolved by reference to the state court record.” Totten v.
Merkle, 137 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Earp v. Ornoski, 431 F.3d 1158,
1173 (9th Cir. 2005). “It is axiomatic that when issues can be resolved with
reference to the state court record, an evidentiary hearing becomes nothing more
than a futile exercise.” Totten, 137 F.3d at 1176. Here, the Magistrate Judge
concluded all of Petitioner’s claims could be resolved by reference to the state
court record. Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered (1) denying the
Second Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus; and (2) dismissing this
action with prejudice.
Dated: October 11, 2016
HONORABLE JAMES V. SELNA
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?