Michael Campbell v. Warden Rick Hill

Filing 57

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge John W. Holcomb for Report and Recommendation 48 . 1. The Petition is DENIED. 2. Judgment shall be entered DISMISSING this action with prejudice. (see document for further details) (hr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL CAMPBELL,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 2:20-cv-01530-JWH (SHK)

Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN RICK HILL,
Respondent.

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

1

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

2

relevant records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States

3

Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged in de novo review of those portions of

4

the Report to which Petitioner has objected. The Court ACCEPTS the findings

5

and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

6

In the interest of thoroughness, the Court finds that Ground Three of the

7

Petition fails on both (1) procedural grounds, as stated on pages 15 through 20 of

8

the Report and Recommendation; and (2) on the merits. Specifically, to the extent

9

that Ground Three presents a cognizable federal claim, in light of the evidence

10

presented at trial and the instructions as a whole, there is no likelihood that the jury

11

applied the flight instruction in a way that violated the Constitution. See Houston

12

v. Roe, 177 F.3d 901, 908-09 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that, when a jury

13

instruction is alleged to have shifted the burden of proof, it “must be viewed in the

14

context of the entire trial and the jury instructions taken as a whole,” with “[t]he

15

relevant inquiry” being “whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has

16

applied the challenged instruction in an unconstitutional manner” (internal

17

quotation marks and citation omitted)). In addition, even if the Court could find

18

that the flight instruction was erroneous, any error was harmless in light of the trial

19

record as a whole. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637-38 (1993)

20

(stating that, on harmless error review, our inquiry “is whether, in light of the

21

record as a whole, [the error] had substantial and injurious effect or influence in

22

determining the jury’s verdict” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

23

It is therefore ORDERED as follows:

24

1.

The Petition is DENIED.

25
26
27
28

2

Judgment shall be entered DISMISSING this action with prejudice.

1

2.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4
5
6

Dated: May 23, 2023
HONORABLE JOHN W. HOLCOMB
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3