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)

Download PDF
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

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?