Victor Medina Lopez Jr v. J Tim Ochoa

Filing 19

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Stephen V. Wilson for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 16 . Therefore, Petitioner has not shown that, more likely than not, any reasonable juror would have reasonable doubt about his guilt in this case under the light of the new evidence he has presented. Accordingly, Petitioner cannot present his time-barred habeas claims. (See document for specifics.) (iva)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

VICTOR MEDINA LOPEZ, JR.,

12
Petitioner,

13
v.

14
15

J. TIM OCHOA, WARDEN,

16

Respondent.

17

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

Case No. CV 12-1900 SVW (DTB)
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND
SEPARATE ORDER

18
19

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court reviewed the petition, the record, the Report and

20

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and Petitioner’s Objections to the

21

Report and Recommendation. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the

22

Magistrate Judge. Although the Court agrees with and adopts the Report and Recommendation,

23

the Court adds an additional comment about the evidence Petitioner offered to enter the Schlup

24

gateway.

25
26
27
28

1

In Schlup v. Delo, the Supreme Court explained that a petitioner must submit reliable

2

evidence not presented at trial to circumvent AEDPA’s statute of limitations. 513 U.S. 298, 316

3

(1995). The evidence must be significant: “A petitioner’s burden at the gateway stage is to

4

demonstrate that more likely than not, in light of the new evidence, no reasonable juror would

5

find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt — or, to remove the double negative, that more likely

6

than not any reasonable juror would have reasonable doubt.” House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 538

7

(2006).

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Petitioner cannot meet his heavy burden. First, this Court has some direct evidence that a
reasonable person would not harbor reasonable doubt in light of the new evidence. Petitioner
ventilated his new evidence before a state court judge in a full evidentiary hearing. The judge
considered Petitioner’s experts’ testimonies (which he reasonably discredited) as well as the
State’s experts and found insufficient cause to vacate the conviction. These findings are some
evidence that the testimonies of Petitioner’s new experts would not cause any reasonable juror to
harbor reasonable doubt.

15
16

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has already determined that the kind of evidence Petitioner

17

introduced is insufficient. The Ninth Circuit has found that new evidence creating a conflict of

18

medical opinion is insufficient to access the Schlup gateway. Jones v. Taylor, 763 F.3d 1242,

19

1247 (9th Cir. 2014); Jackson v. Calderon, 211 F.3d 1148, 1165 (9th Cir. 2000). And

20

Petitioner’s new evidence — testimonies from forensic pathologists that disagree with the expert

21

opinions of other qualified experts — does nothing more than create such a difference of medical

22

opinion.

23
24
25

///

26

///

27
28

///

2

1

Therefore, Petitioner has not shown that, more likely than not, any reasonable juror

2

would have reasonable doubt about his guilt in this case under the light of the new evidence he

3

has presented. Accordingly, Petitioner cannot present his time-barred habeas claims.

4
5

Dated: April 28, 2015

6
7
8
9
10

STEPHEN V. WILSON
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3