Randal Ruiz v. Jeffery Beard

Filing 65

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Percy Anderson. IT IS ORDERED that the Petition is denied and Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. 49 61 63 (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (gr)

1

`

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RANDAL RUIZ,
Petitioner,

12
v.

13
14

Case No. CV 14-08693 PA (RAO)

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, Warden,
Respondent.

15

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

16
17

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, all of the

18

records and files herein, and the Final Report and Recommendation of United

19

States Magistrate Judge (“Report”).1 Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo

20

review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation issued on October 21,

21

2016, to which Petitioner has objected.2 The Court hereby accepts and adopts the

22

findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Report issued March 28, 2017, differs from the Report and Recommendation issued
on October 21, 2016, only in the addition of non-substantive procedural background. (See Dkt.
No. 62 at 1 n.2.)
2
On March 6, 2017, the Court received from Petitioner a “Motion for Relief from
Judgement for De Novo Review, Reconsideration Rehearing” regarding the Magistrate Judge’s
partial grant of Petitioner’s request for an extension of time in which to file objections to the
Report. (Dkt. No. 61.) Because Petitioner has now filed objections to the Report, his Motion is
denied as moot.

1

The Court notes that Petitioner appears to raise, for the first time, a number

2

of claims that were not addressed in the Report. Specifically, Petitioner challenges

3

the following aspects of the police investigation preceding his state prosecution, his

4

state prosecution, and his state habeas efforts: denial of discovery of jury

5

misconduct; denial of evidentiary hearings on collateral review; impermissibly

6

suggestive show-up; unreliable identification testimony; clearly erroneous and

7

inconsistent pre-show-up description; prosecutorial misconduct; false or misleading

8

arguments, presumably by the prosecution; denial of right to present a defense;

9

insufficient evidence to support presumption of harm to occupants; illegal

10

detention, arrest, search, and seizure; denial of a full and fair suppression hearing;

11

failure to preserve evidence in bad faith; use by the prosecution of incurably

12

prejudicial hearsay; hearsay impermissibly admitted for the truth of the matter

13

asserted on the critical issue of intent; and denial of discovery on peace officer

14

personnel misconduct, including as it related to a motion to suppress evidence; and

15

failure to preserve evidence. (Dkt. No. 62 at 1-2.) While Petitioner raised many of

16

these arguments on direct appeal of his conviction to the California Court of Appeal

17

or during state habeas proceedings (Dkt. No. 1 at 2-5), and discussed his challenges

18

to these aspects of his state criminal proceedings in opposition to Respondent’s

19

Motion to Dismiss and Answer (Dkt. Nos. 29, 47), Petitioner did not raise these as

20

claims in his Petition in the instant action (see Dkt. No. 1 at 5-9).

21

Generally, a district court is not required to consider new arguments or

22

evidence raised for the first time in an objection to a magistrate judge’s

23

recommendation, but the court actually must exercise its discretion in declining to

24

do so; the court cannot simply adopt the recommendation without explaining that it

25

will not consider a new matter. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 935 (9th Cir.

26

2004); Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2002); United States v.

27

Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-22 (9th Cir. 2000). Here, the Court declines to consider

28

the numerous new grounds now asserted by Petitioner because Petitioner is raising
2

1

them after the Magistrate Judge already had issued the Report.

2

conclusion in this regard is buttressed by the fact that, even at this late stage,

3

Petitioner fails to provide any facts or legal citations to support these new grounds,

4

thus failing to adequately present those claims to the Court. See Greenway v.

5

Schriro, 653 F.3d 790, 804 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that a “cursory and vague claim

6

cannot support habeas relief” (citing James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir.

7

1994))); James, 24 F.3d at 26 (“Conclusory allegations which are not supported by

8

a statement of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief.” (citing Boehme v.

9

Maxwell, 423 F.2d 1056, 1058 (9th Cir.1970))).

10
11

The Court’s

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition is denied and Judgment shall
be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.

12
13

DATED: 03/30/2017

14
15

PERCY ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3