Diazleal-Diazleal v. Key

Filing 44

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 29 . The Court OVERRULES Petitioner's objections, (Dkt. No. 34 ), and DISMISSES Petitioner's habeas petition (Dkt. No. 3 ). Lastly, the Court DENIES Petitioner's request for a Certificate of Appealability. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour. (SS)

Case 2:21-cv-00068-JCC Document 44 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 3

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

MAXIMO DIAZLEAL-DIAZLEAL,

10
v.

11
12

Petitioner,

CASE NO. C21-0068-JCC
ORDER

JAMES KEY,

13

Respondent.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s objections (Dkt. No. 34) to the Report

16

and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Theresa L. Fricke, United States Magistrate

17

Judge (Dkt. No. 29). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record,

18

the Court hereby OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections, ADOPTS the R&R, and DISMISSES

19

petitioner’s federal habeas corpus petition (Dkt. No. 3) with prejudice, for the reasons explained

20

herein.

21

The facts and procedural history of this case are described in detail in Judge Fricke’s

22

R&R, (see generally, Dkt. No. 29 at 1–7), and the Court will not repeat them here. The petitioner

23

presents the Court with the following grounds for habeas corpus relief: (1) the trial court erred

24

when it allowed a police detective to opine favorably on the victim’s demeanor during her joint

25

victim interview; (2) the trial court erred by not striking another witness’ other bad act

26

testimony; (3) the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury; and (4) the state presented
ORDER
C21-0068-JCC
PAGE - 1

Case 2:21-cv-00068-JCC Document 44 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 3

1

insufficient to find petitioner guilty of two identical crimes. (Dkt. No. 3 at 5–10.) Judge Fricke

2

recommends this Court dismiss Claims 2 and 3 on two grounds. First, that Petitioner failed to

3

exhaust available state remedies. (Dkt. No. 29 at 8–10); see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); Baldwin v.

4

Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004). Second, that the claims are procedurally default. (Dkt. No. 29 at

5

10–12); Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1, 9 (2012); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729–732

6

(1991). Judge Fricke engaged the merits of Claims 1 and 4, and found Petitioner did not come

7

close to showing the unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or an

8

unreasonable determination of the facts. (Dkt. No. 29 at 15–19). Petitioner objected to Judge

9

Fricke’s R&R, but failed to identify any specific issues for review. (See generally Dkt. No. 34.)

10

The Court reviews de novo those portions of a R&R to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C.

11

§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Objections are required to enable the court to “focus

12

attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.”

13

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985). A party properly objects by timely filing “specific

14

written objections” to the magistrate judge’s R&R as required under Federal Rule of Civil

15

Procedure 72(b)(2). General objections, or summaries of arguments previously presented, have

16

the same effect as no objection at all, since the Court’s attention is not focused on any specific

17

issues for review. See Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp, 77 F.3d 1170, 1175 (9th Cir. 1996); see

18

also Djelassi v. ICE Field Office Director, 434 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (W.D. Wash. 2020) (district

19

courts only review de novo “those portions of the report and recommendation to which specific

20

written objection is made”).

21

Petitioner’s objections reiterate the merits of his claims, are filled with conclusory

22

statements, summarize arguments previously presented, point to no specific error by Judge

23

Fricke. (Compare Dkt. No. 28, with Dkt. No. 34). Thus, they amount to no objection at all, since

24

they do not focus the Court’s attention on any specific issues for review. See Howard v. Sec'y of

25

Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). They provide the Court without a

26

basis to reject the R&R.
ORDER
C21-0068-JCC
PAGE - 2

Case 2:21-cv-00068-JCC Document 44 Filed 01/17/23 Page 3 of 3

1

For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections, (Dkt. No. 34),

2

ADOPTS Judge Fricke’s R&R, (Dkt. No. 29), and DISMISSES Petitioner’s habeas petition

3

(Dkt. No. 3). Lastly, because no reasonable jurist could disagree with the findings in Judge

4

Fricke’s R&R, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s request for a Certificate of Appealability.

5

DATED this 17th day of January 2023.

A

6
7
8

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C21-0068-JCC
PAGE - 3