ROJAS v. CAPOZZA et al

Filing 20

ORDERED THAT THE PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED; THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED; PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY IS DENIED; PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOI NTMENT OF COUNSEL IS DENIED; THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; AND THE CCLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 5/7/18. 5/7/18 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED.(jpd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PETER B. ROJAS,

:
:
Petitioner
:
:
v.
:
:
MARK CAPOZZA, ET AL.,
:
:
Respondents.
:
____________________________________:

CIVIL ACTION

No. 17-3488

ORDER
AND NOW, this 7th day of May, 2018, upon careful and independent consideration of
the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Thomas J. Reuter, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

Petitioner’s objections (Doc. Nos. 17 & 19) are OVERRULED;1

1

Petitioner’s objections press the same arguments raised in his petition. Because I find
that the Magistrate Judge applied the appropriate standard of review and thoroughly addressed
the pertinent legal issues in his Report and Recommendation, I will not re-address the same
issues. See Palmer v. Astrue, No. 09-820, 2010 WL 1254266, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2010)
(“If . . . objections to a Report merely reiterate arguments previously raised before a magistrate
judge, de novo review is not required.”), aff’d sub nom. Palmer v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 410 F.
App’x 490 (3d Cir. 2011). In his objections, Petitioner raises one new argument as to his first
claim, some additional facts as to his second claim, and adds a seventh claim, which I address in
turn below.
In his first claim, Petitioner argues that the state court unreasonably applied Brady and its
progeny in concluding that the prosecution’s failure to produce three exculpatory videos did not
constitute Brady violations. The state court found that Petitioner did not satisfy the three prongs
of Brady with respect to the three videos. The Magistrate Judge agreed with the state court that
Petitioner cannot satisfy Brady because the first video was not in the prosecution’s possession,
the second video was not material because it would not show a scene of altercation nor would it
show any evidence the jury was not already aware of, and the third video was not material
because it did not show Petitioner or the victim. In his objections, Petitioner contends that the
1

2.

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 11) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED;

3.

The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED;

4.

Petitioner’s Motion for Discovery (Doc. No. 4) is DENIED;

5.

Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. No. 6) is DENIED;

4.

There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability; and

5.

The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case CLOSED.

state court judge and Magistrate Judge failed to do a “cumulative” analysis of the effect of the
alleged suppression of the three videos. (Obj. at 5.) As the Magistrate Judge noted, the
prosecution never obtained the first video and Petitioner has failed to demonstrate how the
second and third videos were exculpatory or material. Because the videos were either not
suppressed or not material, I find that a cumulative Brady violation has not occurred. See United
States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 970 (3d Cir. 1991).
In Petitioner’s third claim, he contends that the state court unreasonably applied Miranda and its
progeny in concluding that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to properly cross examine
a witness or argue a motion to suppress statements made by Petitioner. The state court
concluded that Petitioner was not in custody for purposes of Miranda when he made the
statements, and thus counsel was not ineffective for failing to more fully cross examine a witness
about them or raise a meritless argument to suppress them. The Magistrate Judge found that the
state court did not err in its determination and underscored that Petitioner had not overcome the
burden of 20 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), which states that “a determination of a factual issue made by a
State court shall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the
presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.” In his objections, Petitioner
points to additional facts that he avers indicate he was in custody. (Obj. at 12-15.) Upon review
of the record, I agree with the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner has not overcome the presumption
because viewed objectively, a reasonable person in Petitioner’s circumstances would not have
thought he was in custody. The additional facts to which Petitioner points in his objections do
not alter this conclusion, and thus Petitioner has failed to overcome § 2254(e)(1)’s presumption.
Finally, Petitioner raises a new claim in his objections, arguing that “the cumulative error
doctrine provides relief.” (Supp. Obj. at 6.) Because I agree with the Magistrate Judge that no
individual constitutional errors were committed in state court, I cannot conclude that the
cumulative error doctrine applies here.
2

BY THE COURT:

___________________________
MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, J.

3