Muro v. Gipson
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — The 8 district court judge must “make a de novo determinatio
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to deny a state prisoner's habeas corpus petition, which was adopted in the absence of timely objections. The court denied the petition and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adopt Report and Recommendation“Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.” | de novo | disagree with court · procedure The order recites that no party filed an objection to the Report. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, the standard of review for an unobjected R&R is 'clear error,' not de novo. The court's citation of the de novo standard is legally incorrect in this context, although the outcome (adoption) is procedurally valid because the court found no clear error. |
Deny First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and DENIES the Petition.” | de novo | agree with court The court adopts the Magistrate's recommendation to deny the petition. Because the court did not conduct an independent de novo review of the merits (as it should have if it were applying the de novo standard it cited, or as it would if it were applying the clear error standard), the order relies entirely on the Magistrate's findings. The order is procedurally sound in adopting the R&R, but the reasoning is circular as it incorporates the R&R without independent analysis. |
Decline to Issue Certificate of Appealability“the Court finds this standard has been met, and therefore a certificate of appealability is DENIED.” | de novo | disagree with court · procedure The court applies the correct standard from Slack v. McDaniel and Beaty v. Stewart. However, the court states that the standard 'has been met' to deny the COA. This is a logical error; the standard for *issuing* a COA is that reasonable jurists would find the assessment debatable. If the standard is 'met,' the COA should be issued. The court likely meant the standard for *denial* (i.e., that the petitioner failed to make a substantial showing) was met, or that the threshold for appeal was not met. The phrasing is contradictory. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound in adopting the R&R and denying the petition, as it correctly identifies that no objections were filed. However, it contains a significant legal error in stating that the standard of review is 'de novo' when no objections were filed; the correct standard is 'clear error.' Additionally, the COA section contains a logical contradiction, stating that the standard for issuance 'has been met' while denying the COA. These errors do not necessarily change the outcome but reflect a lack of precision in the court's reasoning.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTONIO MURO, Case No.: 22cv550-LL-LR 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 14 CONNIE GIPSON, Warden; et al., RECOMMENDATON 15 Respondents. [ECF No. 28]
16 (2) DENYING FIRST AMENDED 17 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 18 [ECF No. 1] 19 (3) DECLINING TO ISSUE 20 CERTIFICATE OF 21 APPEALABILITY 22 23 On April 20, 2022, Antonio Muro (“Petitioner”), a California state prisoner 24 proceeding pro se, initiated this matter by filing a First Amended Petition for writ of habeas 25 corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. Petitioner asserts claims of 26 ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel’s failure to argue for jury instruction on 27 provocation, and violation of due process rights when the court and counsel finalized jury 28 1 instructions in Petitioner’s absence. Id. Respondents filed an Answer to the Petition [ECF 2 No. 21] and Petitioner filed a Traverse [ECF No. 27]. 3 On November 15, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Lupe Rodriguez, Jr. issued 4 a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that this Court deny the Petition. 5 ECF No. 28. 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth the district 7 court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 8 district court judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to 9 which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 10 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see 11 also United States. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 12 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of a timely objection, the Court 13 “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to 14 accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing 15 Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206) (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States 16 v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review 17 the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 18 otherwise.”). 19 Petitioner was originally granted twenty-eight days to file objections to the Report. 20 ECF No. 28. The Court granted in part Petitioner’s request for additional time, allowing an 21 additional twenty-one days. ECF No. 30. The Court denied Petitioner’s second request for 22 additional time but stated it would consider any objections filed by January 21, 2025. ECF 23 No. 32. No party filed an objection to the Report and the time for doing so has expired. 24 Having reviewed the Report, the Court finds it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no 25 clear errors. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. 26 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 27 A certificate of appealability must be obtained by a petitioner in order to pursue an 28 appeal from a final order in a § 2254 habeas corpus proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. 1 || § 2253(c)(1)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). The Rules Following 28 U.S.C. § 2254 require the 2 || district court to “issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order 3 ||adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. A certificate of appealability 4 issue “only if? the petitioner makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a 5 constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A “substantial showing” requires a 6 ||demonstration that “‘reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the 7 || constitutional claims debatable or wrong.’” Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 8 2002) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). For the reasons set forth in 9 Report and Recommendation and incorporated here, the Court finds this standard has 10 been met, and therefore a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 11 CONCLUSION 12 For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the Report and 13 || Recommendation in its entirety and DENIES the Petition. The Court DECLINES to issue 14 |/a certificate of appealability and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and 15 |} terminate this matter. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ||Dated: April 11, 2025 NO 18 QF 19 Honorable Linda Lopez 30 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28