Jackson v. Fox et al
Filing
13
ORDER adopting 12 Report and Recommendation. The Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court: (1) ADOPTS the R & R, (Doc. No. 12); (2) GRANTS Respondent's motion to dismiss, (Doc. No. 9); and (3 ) DISMISSES the Petition WITH PREJUDICE, (Doc. No. 1). The Court finds that reasonable jurists could not debate the Courts conclusion to dismiss with prejudice Petitioner's claims and therefore DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 2/6/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(acc)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LEON JACKSON,
Case No.: 16-CV-1288-AJB-DHB
Petitioner,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER:
WARDEN ROBERT FOX, KAMALA
HARRIS,
15
16
(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION, (Doc. No. 12);
(2) GRANTING RESPONDENT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS, (Doc. No. 9);
Respondents.
17
(3) DISMISSING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS COPRUS, (Doc.
No. 1); AND
18
19
20
(4) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY
21
22
23
24
On May 27, 2016, Petitioner Leon Jackson (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding
25
pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
26
U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) The Petition seeks relief from Petitioner’s 2012
27
conviction in San Diego Superior Court, Case No. SCE320691, following a jury trial in
28
which Petitioner was found guilty of robbery and was subsequently sentenced to a prison
1
16-CV-1288-AJB-DHB
1
term of nine years. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on September 12, 2016, (Doc.
2
No. 9), which Petitioner opposed on October 17, 2016, (Doc. No. 11).
3
The Court referred the matter to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a report and
4
recommendation (“R & R”). (Doc. No. 12.) The R & R concluded that Respondent’s
5
motion should be granted. (Id. at 8.) The parties were instructed to file written objections
6
to the R & R no later than January 6, 2017. (Id.)
7
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district
8
judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The
9
district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to
10
which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
11
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
12
see United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617–18 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the
13
absence of timely objections, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error
14
on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)
15
advisory committee’s note (1983); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
16
1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the
17
magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not
18
otherwise.” (emphasis in original)). Here, neither party filed timely objections to the R &
19
R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no
20
clear error. Accordingly, the Court: (1) ADOPTS the R & R, (Doc. No. 12); (2) GRANTS
21
Respondent’s motion to dismiss, (Doc. No. 9); and (3) DISMISSES the Petition WITH
22
PREJUDICE, (Doc. No. 1).
23
When a district court enters a final order adverse to the applicant in a habeas corpus
24
proceeding, it must either issue or deny a certificate of appealability, which is required to
25
appeal a final order in a habeas corpus proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate
26
of appealability is appropriate only where the petitioner makes “a substantial showing of
27
the denial of a constitutional right.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327 (quoting 28 U.S.C. §
28
2253(c)(2)). Under this standard, the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists
2
16-CV-1288-AJB-DHB
1
could debate whether the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that
2
the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Slack v.
3
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000). Here, the Court finds that reasonable jurists could
4
not debate the Court’s conclusion to dismiss with prejudice Petitioner’s claims and
5
therefore DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
Dated: February 6, 2017
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
16-CV-1288-AJB-DHB
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?