Griffin v. Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAURICE GRIFFIN, Case No.: 23cv1205-LL-JLB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. ADOPTING REPORT AND 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN 15 STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; DIEGO; et al., [ECF No. 42] 16 Respondents. 17 GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION 18 FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; 19 [ECF No. 22]

20 DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 21 TO EXPAND RECORD; [ECF No. 33] 22 23 DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF 24 APPEALABILITY 25 26 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 On June 24, 2023, Petitioner Maurice Griffin (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner 2 proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 3 ECF No. 1.1 On October 22, 2023, Petitioner filed a Second Amended Petition for Writ of 4 Habeas Corpus (“Petition”). ECF No. 9. On April 3, 2024, Respondent Jeff Macomber, 5 Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“Respondent”), 6 filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition (“Motion”) for failure to exhaust state-level remedies 7 and because it is barred by the statute of limitations, to which Petitioner responded. ECF 8 Nos. 22, 34. Petitioner also filed a Motion to Expand the Record, to which Respondent 9 responded. ECF Nos. 33, 39. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge 10 Jill J. Burkhardt for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and 11 Civil Local Rule HC.2. Judge Burkhardt issued a Report recommending that the Motion to 12 Dismiss be granted and the Motion to Expand the Record be denied. ECF No. 42. 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth the district 14 court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 15 district court judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to 16 which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 17 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see 18 also United States. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 19 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of a timely objection, the Court 20 “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to 21 accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing 22 Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206) (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States 23 v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review 24 the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 25 otherwise.”). 26 27 1 Citations to any docketed materials refer to the CM/ECF number printed on the top of 28 1 Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due no later than December 16, 2 2024. ECF No. 47. To date, no objections have been filed and the time for doing so has 3 expired. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds it is thorough, 4 well-reasoned, and contains no clear errors. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report 5 and Recommendation in its entirety. 6 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 7 A certificate of appealability must be obtained by a petitioner in order to pursue an 8 appeal from a final order in a § 2254 habeas corpus proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. 9 § 2253(c)(1)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). The Rules Following 28 U.S.C. § 2254 require the 10 district court to “issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order 11 adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. A certificate of appealability 12 will issue “only if” the petitioner makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a 13 constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A “substantial showing” requires a 14 demonstration that “‘reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the 15 constitutional claims debatable or wrong.’” Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 16 2002) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). For the reasons set forth in 17 the Report and Recommendation and incorporated here, the Court finds this standard has 18 not been met, and therefore a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 19 CONCLUSION 20 For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the Report and 21 Recommendation in its entirety, GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss, DISMISSES the 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 || Petition with prejudice’, and DENIES as moot Petitioner’s Motion to Expand the Record. 2 || The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability and DIRECTS the Clerk of 3 || Court to enter judgment in favor of Respondents and terminate this case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: January 3, 2025 NO 6 CF | 7 Honorable Linda Lopez United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 |, 28 The Petition is barred by the statute of limitations, rendering amendment futile.