Lama Ugiley v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County California

Filing 21

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 19 . IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that(1) the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted, and (2)Judgment shall be entered denying the Petition and dismissing thisaction with prejudice. (see document for further details) (klg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

WESTERN DIVISION
LAMA UGILEY,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES
)
COUNTY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
_________________________________ )

Case No. CV 15-3044 VBF (AJW)
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
The Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,
18
Respondent’s

Answer,

Petitioner’s

Traverse,

the

Report

and

19
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (“Report”), and Petitioner’s
20
objections.
21
The Court must engage in a de novo review of those portions of
22
the Report to which Petitioner has objected.

See Fed. R. Civ. P.

23
72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d
24
1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

In her objections, Petitioner mostly

25
reargues her claims that (1) CALCRIM No. 318 improperly relieved the
26
prosecution

of

its

burden

of

proof

and

denied

Petitioner

her

27
constitutional rights, and (2) evidence fails to support the trial
28
court’s finding that Petitioner had the present ability to pay
attorney’s fees. The Court overrules these objections for the reasons

1

stated in the Report.

2

For the first time in her objections, Petitioner claims that

3

appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance “by failing to

4

federalize the issue” of Petitioner’s ability to pay attorney’s fees.

5

“[A] district court has discretion, but is not required, to consider

6

evidence presented for the first time in a party’s objection to a

7

magistrate judge’s recommendation.”

8

(9th Cir. 2002), citing United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621

9

(9th Cir. 2000).

Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 744

The Court has considered and rejects Petitioner’s

10

claim of ineffective assistance.

11

counsel’s failure to “federalize the issue” falls woefully short of

12

supporting, let alone stating, a claim of ineffective assistance of

13

counsel.

14

state court and therefore is not appropriate for review.

15

v. Arnold, 2017 WL 2468767, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2017); see also

16

Griffin v. Davis, 2017 WL 1649999, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2017).

A cursory reference to appellate

Moreover, Petitioner’s new claim has not been exhausted in
See Collins

17

The Court accepts the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and

18

recommendations contained in the Report. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that

19

(1) the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted, and (2)

20

Judgment shall be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this

21

action with prejudice.

22
23

DATED: June 21, 2017

24
25

___________________________
Valerie Baker Fairbank
United States District Judge

26
27
28
2