James v. Jackson

Filing 76

ORDER ADOPTING 74 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition IS DENIED. This case IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Petitioner IS GRANTED a certificate of appealability.**6 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Robert James, Prisoner ID: 365127)(ZMG)

Case 3:16-cv-06063-RJB Document 76 Filed 12/09/21 Page 1 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10
11

CASE NO. 16-6063 RJB-BAT

ROBERT E. JAMES,
Petitioner,

12

v.

13

ORDER ON REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

ERIC JACKSON,

14

Respondent.

15
16

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of U.S.

17

Magistrate Judge Brian A. Tsuchida. Dkt. 74. The Court has considered the Report and

18

Recommendation, the Petitioner’s Objections, and the remaining record.

19

The Petitioner, pro se, filed this amended habeas petition challenging his 2013 conviction

20

for second-degree rape and sentence of 102 months to life in prison. Dkt. 48. He asserts eight

21

grounds for relief. Id. The Report and Recommendation recommends finding that he did not

22

fairly present Ground 1, Ground 2, sub-claims of Grounds 4 and 5, and Ground 8 as federal

23

claims to the state courts. Dkt. 74. It recommends finding that those grounds are procedurally

24

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1

Case 3:16-cv-06063-RJB Document 76 Filed 12/09/21 Page 2 of 6

1

barred and that they lack merit. Id. The Report and Recommendation recommends finding that

2

the remaining grounds for relief lack merit. Id. It recommends denying the motion for an

3

evidentiary hearing. Id. Accordingly, it recommends denying the amended petition and

4

dismissing the case with prejudice. Id. The Report and Recommendation recommends granting

5

a certificate of appealability only as to the Ground 4 subclaim of ineffective assistance of trial

6

counsel regarding the misevaluation and misrepresentation of the DNA report. Id.

7
8

The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 74) should be adopted. The Petitioner’s
objections do not provide a basis to reject it.

9

Fair Presentation – Grounds 1, 2, subparts of Grounds 4 and 5, and Ground 8.

10

“Before seeking a federal writ of habeas corpus, a state prisoner must exhaust available

11

state remedies, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), thereby giving the State the opportunity to pass upon and

12

correct alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal rights.” Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004).

13

Accordingly, “the prisoner must fairly present his claim in each appropriate state court . . .

14

thereby alerting that court to the federal nature of the claim.” Id. “Mere general appeals to broad

15

constitutional principles, such as due process, equal protection, and the right to a fair trial, do not

16

establish exhaustion. Nor is it enough to raise a state claim that is analogous or closely similar to

17

a federal claim.” Castillo v. McFadden, 399 F.3d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 2005)

18

Despite his protestations to the contrary, the Petitioner does not show that he fairly

19

presented Grounds 1, 2, subparts of Grounds 4 and 5, and Ground 8 as federal claims to the

20

Washington state courts. He does not meaningfully contest that he is now procedurally barred

21

from pursuing these remedies in state court. His contention, that in any event, each of these

22

Grounds have merit and so should be considered (Dkt. 75), is contrary to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)

23
24

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2

Case 3:16-cv-06063-RJB Document 76 Filed 12/09/21 Page 3 of 6

1

and Baldwin. Moreover, as provided in the Report and Recommendation, those claims do not

2

have merit. The Report and Recommendation as to these grounds should be adopted.
Exhausted Claims

3
4

The Report and Recommendation recommends that closely related Grounds 3 and 7,

5

denial of Due Process based on insufficiency of the record, be dismissed and that an evidentiary

6

hearing is not warranted. Dkt. 74. The Report and Recommendation also recommends that

7

Petitioner should not be granted relief on Ground 6, denial of due process by the alteration of

8

court records. Id. Petitioner’s objections are without merit and the Report and Recommendation

9

on these grounds and as to the evidentiary hearing should be adopted. The Petitioner contends

10

that the Report and Recommendation discuss only one of the individuals who claim that they

11

heard different testimony at the trial than is reflected in the court reporter’s certified report of the

12

proceedings. Dkt. 75. The Report and Recommendation discusses two of the affidavits provided

13

(Petitioner’s sister and his nephew). Id., at 12-13. Moreover, the third affidavit, from co-defense

14

counsel, stated that to the best of her recollection, “[t]he alleged victim testified that ‘the person

15

who picked me up is the one who raped me.’” Dkt. 51-1, at 185. The two other affiants state that

16

the statement was made by a nurse who testified that the victim told her that the person who

17

picked her up is the one who raped her. Dkt. 51-1, at 179 and 182. As stated in the Report and

18

Recommendation, the state courts’ holdings, that statements from a trial attendee, without more,

19

is not sufficient to show a material omission in the certified transcripts, does not merit habeas

20

relief. This is particularly true, as here, where different people remember events differently. No

21

evidentiary hearing is necessary.

22
23

The Report and Recommendation recommends that Petitioner should not be granted
relief on his exhausted Ground 4 subclaims: ineffective assistance of trial counsel for (a) failure

24

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 3

Case 3:16-cv-06063-RJB Document 76 Filed 12/09/21 Page 4 of 6

1

to investigate and understand the DNA report, (b) failure to raise a reasonable belief defense, (c)

2

failure to object to restitution, and (d) failure to object to use of information on sentencing. Dkt.

3

74. The Report and Recommendation on the exhausted subparts of Ground 4 should be adopted.

4

Petitioner’s objections do not provide a reason to reject it. As to subpart (a), the Petitioner now

5

asserts that he suffered prejudice because “had he been accurately informed of the facts

6

regarding the DNA evidence, he would have accepted the offer, even while maintaining his

7

claim of innocence.” Dkt. 75, at 9. (This subpart of Ground 4 is the only portion of the

8

Amended Petition for which the Report and Recommendation recommends that a certificate of

9

appealability issue.) Petitioner’s statement is unavailing here. It was not before the state courts.

10

It is unhelpful in determining whether the state courts adjudication of the claim was contrary to,

11

or an unreasonable application of, clearly established law, or was an unreasonable determination

12

of the facts. Petitioner’s remaining objections as to Ground 4 are a repetition of his prior

13

arguments and are addressed in the Report and Recommendation.

14

The Report and Recommendation recommends that Petitioner should not be granted

15

relief on his exhausted Ground 5 subclaims: ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for (a)

16

failure to object to the record as being insufficiently complete, (b) failure to communicate and

17

investigate, and (c) failure to provide accurate information. Dkt. 74. The Petitioner’s objections

18

do not provide a basis to reject the Report and Recommendation. They are a repeat of his prior

19

assertions. As stated in the Report and Recommendation, he fails to show that the state courts’

20

adjudication of this claim warrants habeas relief. The Report and Recommendation as to the

21

exhausted Ground 5 subclaims should be adopted.

22

Certificate of Appealability

23
24

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 4

Case 3:16-cv-06063-RJB Document 76 Filed 12/09/21 Page 5 of 6

1

The Report and Recommendation recommends that a certificate of appealability be

2

issued only as to Ground 4 subclaim: ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to

3

investigate and understand the DNA report and whether that failure impacted Petitioner’s ability

4

to decide whether to accept a plea offer. Dkt. 74. It recommends that a certificate of

5

appealability be denied as to all other claims. Id. Petitioner objects and seeks a certificate of

6

appealability on all his grounds for relief. Dkt. 75.

7

The district court should grant an application for a Certificate of Appealability only if the

8

petitioner makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

9

§ 2253(c)(3). To obtain a Certificate of Appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), a habeas

10

petitioner must make a showing that reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court’s

11

resolution of his or her constitutional claims or that jurists could agree the issues presented were

12

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–

13

485 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)).

14

The Report and Recommendation’s recommendation regarding a certificate of

15

appealability should be adopted. A certificate of appealability should issue for the subpart of

16

Ground 4 for ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to investigate and understand the

17

DNA report and whether that failure impacted Petitioner’s ability to decide whether to accept a

18

plea offer. For all remaining grounds, Petitioner has failed to made a “substantial showing of the

19

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). He has not shown that jurists could

20

agree that the issues presented in the remaining grounds were adequate to deserve

21

encouragement to proceed further. Slack, at 483-485.
ORDER

22
23

It is ORDERED that:

24

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 5

Case 3:16-cv-06063-RJB Document 76 Filed 12/09/21 Page 6 of 6

1



The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 74) IS ADOPTED;

2



Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition IS DENIED;

3



This case IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and

4



Petitioner IS GRANTED a certificate of appealability solely on Ground 4,

5

subclaim: whether trial defense counsel was ineffective before trial for failing to

6

adequately investigate and understand a report detailing the State’s DNA

7

evidence, and whether defense counsel’s failure impacted Petitioner’s ability to

8

decide whether to accept a plea offer from the state.

9

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to U.S. Magistrate Judge

10

Brian A. Tsuchida, all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last

11

known address.

12
13
14
15

Dated this 9th day of December, 2021.

A
ROBERT J. BRYAN
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 6