LaToya Jenkins v. D.K.

Filing 22

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 by Judge Manuel L. Real. IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered denying the petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. (See Order for Further Details) (kl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

LaTOYA JENKINS,
Petitioner,
v.
D.K. JOHNSON, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. EDCV 13-2017-R (AGR)

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

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

19

on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge. Further,

20

the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to

21

which Petitioner has objected. The Court accepts the findings and

22

recommendation of the magistrate judge.

23

Petitioner appears to raise two new grounds. First, Petitioner argues that

24

with respect to Ground One, which is insufficient evidence, her trial counsel “was

25

ineffective in failing to conduct a reasonable pre-trial investigation.” (Objections

26

at 2.) In conjunction with her listed grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel,

27

Petitioner reiterates that her counsel failed to conduct a “reasonable” pre-trial

28

investigation. (Id. at 4.) In conjunction with Ground Four on jury instructions,

1

Petitioner argues that her attorney had “no say so when it came to the jury[],” and

2

therefore the jury was racially unbalanced. (Id. at 5.)1

3

Petitioner’s two new grounds are unexhausted and therefore cannot

4

provide a basis for relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Moreover, Petitioner’s new

5

grounds are meritless. With respect to the pre-trial investigation, Petitioner states

6

only that counsel failed “to conduct or attempt to conduct any interviews with any

7

of the prosecution witness[es].” (Objections at 4.) Petitioner does not identify the

8

witnesses, what their testimony would have been, or how their testimony would

9

have established a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional

10

errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland v.

11

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984).

12

Finally, Petitioner’s apparent belief that counsel was not permitted to question the

13

jurors during voir dire is not supported by any evidence and is frivolous.

14

Petitioner’s remaining objections are without merit.

15

IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered denying the petition and

16

dismissing this action with prejudice.

17
18

DATED: June 4, 2015

MANUEL L. REAL
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court construes this new ground to be related to the questioning of
jurors during voir dire.
2