Sanchez v. Martinez

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NAKUNTA SANCHEZ, Case No.: 23-cv-1561-WQH-AHG Petitioner, 12 ORDER v. 13 14 KELLY MARTINEZ and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 15 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 16 Respondents. 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation issued by United 19 States Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard on the Motion to Stay filed by Petitioner 20 Nakunta Sanchez (“Petitioner”) (ECF No. 4) and the Motion to Dismiss filed by 21 Respondents Kelly Martinez and the Attorney General of California (“Respondents”) (ECF 22 No. 12). (ECF No. 14.) 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 On August 23, 2023, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petitioner 25 for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that denial of his good 26 time credit is an Equal Protection Clause violation, and a motion to proceed in forma 27 pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) 28 1 On September 18, 2023, the Court issued an Order granting the IFP motion; 2 notifying “Petitioner his Petition as currently drafted is subject to dismissal for failure to 3 allege exhaustion of state court remedies”; and directing Petitioner to either demonstrate 4 exhaustion, voluntarily dismiss the Petitioner, or file a motion to stay the federal 5 proceedings. (ECF No. 3 at 4–6.) 6 On September 25, 2023, Petitioner filed the Motion to Stay, requesting the Court 7 stay the federal proceedings until the state remedies are exhausted. (ECF No. 4.) On 8 October 30, 2023, Respondents filed a Statement of No Opposition to Motion to Stay. (ECF 9 No. 6.) On November 9, 2023, the Court issued an Order requiring Petitioner to file a Reply 10 and reiterating the Rhines factors. (ECF No. 7.) On November 22, 2023, Petitioner filed a 11 Reply in support of the Motion to Stay, discussing the Rhines factors. (ECF No. 8.) On 12 December 5, 2023, Petitioner filed a Notice of Withdrawal, requesting the Court withdraw 13 his Rhines stay request made on November 17, 2023, because he contends the California 14 Supreme Court denied his state habeas corpus petition on November 15, 2023, thereby 15 satisfying the exhaustion requirement. (ECF No. 9.) 16 On December 21, 2023, Respondents filed the Motion to Dismiss, stating no 17 opposition to the finding of exhaustion on Petitioner’s equal protection claim and moving 18 to dismiss the claim on the grounds that Petitioner procedurally defaulted his claim and 19 failed to plead a required element of the claim. (ECF No. 12.) 20 On July 31, 2024, Magistrate Judge Goddard issued a Report and Recommendation, 21 recommending the Motion to Stay be denied as moot, granting in part the Motion to 22 Dismiss, and dismissing the Petition. (ECF No. 14 at 19.) As to the Motion to Stay, the 23 Report and Recommendation recommends that the Motion to Stay be denied as moot “[i]n 24 light of Petitioner’s withdrawal of his request for a Rhines stay and Respondents’ waiver 25 of the exhaustion requirement.” Id. at 9. As to the Motion to Dismiss, the Report and 26 Recommendation recommends that the Motion to Dismiss be denied on the ground that 27 Petitioner failed to state a claim and granted on the ground that Petitioner’s claim is 28 procedurally defaulted. Id. at 14, 18. 1 Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation, any objections were to be filed by 2 August 15, 2024. The docket reflects that no objections have been filed. 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 5 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. 6 § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 7 report ... to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 8 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The 9 district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to 10 which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); 11 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the 12 Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, 13 findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”). 14 The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the 15 submissions of the parties. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly 16 recommended that the Motion to Stay be denied as moot, Motion to Dismiss be granted in 17 part and denied in part, and the Petition be denied. The Report and Recommendation is 18 adopted in its entirety. 19 III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 20 A certificate of appealability must be obtained by a petitioner in order to pursue an 21 appeal from a final order in a section 2254 habeas corpus proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. 22 § 2253(c)(1)(A); Fed R. App. P. 22(b). Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing 23 Section 2254 Cases, “[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability 24 when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” 25 A certificate of appealability should be issued only where the petition presents “a 26 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). It must 27 appear that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the petitioner’s 28 constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). l The Court finds that issuing a certificate of appealability is not appropriate as 2 ||reasonable jurists would not find debatable or incorrect the Court’s conclusion that 3 || Plaintiff's Equal Protection Clause claim is procedurally defaulted. Nor does the Court find 4 ||that any of the issues presented deserve encouragement to proceed further. 28 U.S.C. 5 2253(c); Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. 6 CONCLUSION 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14) is 8 || adopted in its entirety. The Motion to Stay (ECF No. 4) is denied as moot. The Motion to 9 || Dismiss (ECF No. 12) is granted in part as outlined above. The Petition for Writ of Habeas 10 ||Corpus (ECF No. 1) is denied without prejudice. A certificate of appealability is denied. 11 Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for Respondent and against Petitioner and 12 || close the case. 13 Dated: September 17, 2024 Nitta Ze. A a 14 Hon, William Q. Hayes 15 United States District Court 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28