Griffin v. Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego et al

Filing 48

ORDER: Adopting Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge; (ECF No. 42 ) Granting Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ Of Habeas Corpus; (ECF No. 22 ) Denying Petitioner's Motion to Expand Record; (ECF No. 33 ) Declining to Issue Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Linda Lopez on 1/3/2025. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(maq)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MAURICE GRIFFIN,

Case No.: 23cv1205-LL-JLB
Petitioner,

12
13

v.

14

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO; et al.,

15
16

ORDER:
ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;
[ECF No. 42]

Respondents.

17

GRANTING RESPONDENT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS;
[ECF No. 22]

18
19
20

DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
TO EXPAND RECORD;
[ECF No. 33]

21
22

DECLINING TO ISSUE
CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

23
24
25
26
27

///

28

///
1
23cv1205-LL-JLB

1

On June 24, 2023, Petitioner Maurice Griffin (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner

2

proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

3

ECF No. 1.1 On October 22, 2023, Petitioner filed a Second Amended Petition for Writ of

4

Habeas Corpus (“Petition”). ECF No. 9. On April 3, 2024, Respondent Jeff Macomber,

5

Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“Respondent”),

6

filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition (“Motion”) for failure to exhaust state-level remedies

7

and because it is barred by the statute of limitations, to which Petitioner responded. ECF

8

Nos. 22, 34. Petitioner also filed a Motion to Expand the Record, to which Respondent

9

responded. ECF Nos. 33, 39. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge

10

Jill J. Burkhardt for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and

11

Civil Local Rule HC.2. Judge Burkhardt issued a Report recommending that the Motion to

12

Dismiss be granted and the Motion to Expand the Record be denied. ECF No. 42.

13

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth the district

14

court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The

15

district court judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to

16

which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

17

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see

18

also United States. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing,

19

874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of a timely objection, the Court

20

“need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to

21

accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing

22

Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206) (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States

23

v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review

24

the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not

25

otherwise.”).

26
27
28

Citations to any docketed materials refer to the CM/ECF number printed on the top of
each page.
1

2
23cv1205-LL-JLB

1

Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due no later than December 16,

2

2024. ECF No. 47. To date, no objections have been filed and the time for doing so has

3

expired. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds it is thorough,

4

well-reasoned, and contains no clear errors. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report

5

and Recommendation in its entirety.

6

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

7

A certificate of appealability must be obtained by a petitioner in order to pursue an

8

appeal from a final order in a § 2254 habeas corpus proceeding. See 28 U.S.C.

9

§ 2253(c)(1)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). The Rules Following 28 U.S.C. § 2254 require the

10

district court to “issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order

11

adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. A certificate of appealability

12

will issue “only if” the petitioner makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a

13

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A “substantial showing” requires a

14

demonstration that “‘reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the

15

constitutional claims debatable or wrong.’” Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir.

16

2002) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). For the reasons set forth in

17

the Report and Recommendation and incorporated here, the Court finds this standard has

18

not been met, and therefore a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
CONCLUSION

19
20

For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the Report and

21

Recommendation in its entirety, GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss, DISMISSES the

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
3
23cv1205-LL-JLB

1

Petition with prejudice 2, and DENIES as moot Petitioner’s Motion to Expand the Record.

2

The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability and DIRECTS the Clerk of

3

Court to enter judgment in favor of Respondents and terminate this case.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 3, 2025

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The Petition is barred by the statute of limitations, rendering amendment futile.
4
23cv1205-LL-JLB