Ernie Sandoval v. DB Long

Filing 68

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 62 by Judge S. James Otero. IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Petition is DENIED; and (2) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. *See Order for details.* (es)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

ERNIE SANDOVAL,
Petitioner,
v.

)
)
)
)
)
)
D.B. LONG,
)
Respondent.
)
_________________________________ )

NO. CV 15-730-SJO (KS)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18

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

19

Corpus (“Petition”), all of the records herein, the Report and Recommendation of United

20

States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), and Petitioner’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s

21

Report and Recommendation (“Objections”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed.

22

R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report to

23

which objections have been stated.

24
25

The Court notes that, in concert with the Objections, Petitioner filed a Motion

26

Requesting Leave to Amend or Attach (“Motion”), in which he appears to seek leave to add

27

three new evidentiary exhibits to his original Petition. (Dkt. No. 65.) To the extent that

28

Petitioner now seeks leave to amend the Petition, the Motion is DENIED. However, to the

1

extent that Petitioner asks the Court to consider these exhibits as part of his Objections, the

2

Motion is GRANTED, and the Court exercises its discretion to consider evidence presented

3

for the first time in objections to a report and recommendation. See Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d

4

742, 744-45 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-22 (9th Cir. 2000).

5

Having considered Exhibit H1, a letter from the California State Bar concerning Petitioner’s

6

relatives’ application for reimbursement from the Client Security Fund, Exhibit W, a letter

7

from the Montebello Police Department that the Court ordered added to the Petition as an

8

attachment on November 9, 2015 (see Dkt. No. 49), and Exhibit X, a statement of facts

9

submitted to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office by the Los Angeles County

10

Sheriff’s Department on May 11, 2010, the Court concludes that this evidence does not affect

11

the correctness of the Report’s conclusions.

12
13

Having completed its review, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations set

14

forth in the Report, with the exception of the phrase “from close range” found in footnote 3 on

15

page 25 the Report. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Petition is DENIED; and (2)

16

Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.

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

DATED: May 7, 2016

________________________________
S. JAMES OTERO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE