Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PENI JR. SIULUA, Case No.: 25-cv-2266-AJB-LR 12 ORDER: Petitioner, 13 (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND v. 14 RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 13); PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 15 CALIFORNIA, et al., (2) GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ 16 MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 10) Respondents. 17 18 19 20 21 22 Before the Court is Respondents’ unopposed Motion to Dismiss the Amended 23 Petition (“Motion to Dismiss”). (Doc. No. 10.) Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72.1.d, the 24 assigned magistrate judge for a prisoner case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 not involving the 25 death penalty must submit “a report containing proposed findings of fact and 26 recommendations for disposition of the petition by the district judge.” See also CivLR 27 72.3.e. Thus, also before the Court is Magistrate Judge Lupe Rodriguez, Jr.’s Report and 28 Recommendation Regarding Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (the “R&R”). (Doc. No. 13.) 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner Peni Jr. Siulua (“Petitioner”) filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 3 on June 29, 2025. (Doc. No. 1.) Concurrently, Petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma 4 pauperis (“IFP”) addressed to the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. No. 2.) On August 19, 2025, the 5 Ninth Circuit issued an Order directing the transfer of the instant case to this Court “for 6 whatever consideration that court deems appropriate,” citing Fed. R. App. P. 22(a) and 7 28 U.S.C. §§ 1631, 2241(b), and stated that: “This transfer order is issued without regard 8 to whether petitioner’s claims have any merit or satisfy the procedural requirements of 9 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(d) and 2254.” (Doc. No. 1-3 at 1–2.) The Ninth Circuit also directed 10 that: “The petition is deemed filed on June 29, 2025, the date it was signed.” (Id. at 1 (citing 11 Butler v. Long, 752 F.3d 1177, 1178 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014)).) On September 2, 2025, the 12 instant case was opened as directed. (See generally Docket.) On September 15, 2025, the 13 Court denied Petitioner’s IFP request because Petitioner did not provide the Court with the 14 required financial information. (Doc. No. 3.) Subsequently, Petitioner paid the required 15 $5.00 filing fee and filed the operative Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 16 Nos. 4; 5.) 17 On February 20, 2026, Respondents O’Brian Bailey and Rob Bonta (“Respondents”) 18 moved to dismiss Petitioner’s Amended Petition. (Doc. No. 10.) Petitioner did not file an 19 opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. (See generally Docket.) On July 14, 2026, Magistrate 20 Judge Rodriguez issued the instant R&R recommending that the Court grant Respondents’ 21 Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 13.) The deadline for Petitioner to file any objections to the 22 R&R was August 14, 2026. (Id.) 23 On July 31, 2026, Petitioner submitted a letter stating that he has “tried numerous 24 times to acquire an IFP Application from the prison library with no success.” (Doc. No. 14 25 at 1.) Thus, he asked that the Court send him “an In Forma Pauperis Application that the 26 Court is currently waiting on.” (Doc. No. 14 at 1.) Because Petitioner already paid the filing 27 fee, the Court denied the request as moot. (Doc. No. 15 (citing Reddy v. Cbay Sys. 28 Holdings, Ltd., 584 F. App’x 411, 412 (9th Cir. 2014).) Petitioner’s letter also asked for an 1 “extension of time due to transferring from prison.” (Doc. No. 14 at 1.) Though it was 2 unclear what deadline Petitioner sought to extend, the Court construed the letter as a request 3 for an extension of Petitioner’s deadline to file any objections to the R&R. (Doc. No. 15.) 4 In the interest of justice, the Court granted Petitioner’s request and set a new deadline of 5 August 28, 2026, for any party to file written objections to the R&R. (Id.) No party has 6 filed an objection. 7 II. LEGAL STANDARD 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 9 judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 10 district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to 11 which objection is made[,]” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 12 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see 13 also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). In the absence of any 14 objections, a district court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of 15 the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory 16 committee’s note to the 1983 amendment; see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 17 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 18 III. DISCUSSION 19 Neither party has filed an objection to Judge Rodriguez’s R&R. Thus, having 20 carefully considered the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no 21 clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Rodriguez’s R&R 22 in its entirety and GRANTS Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss. 23 IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 24 When a district court enters a final order adverse to the applicant in a habeas corpus 25 proceeding, it must either issue or deny a certificate of appealability, which is required to 26 appeal a final order in a habeas corpus proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate 27 of appealability is appropriate only where the petitioner makes “a substantial showing of 28 the denial of a constitutional right.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 330 (2003) 1 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)). A “substantial showing” requires a demonstration that 2 || ‘“‘reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 3 || debatable or wrong.’” Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Slack 4 McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). For the reasons set forth in the R&R and 5 || incorporated here, the Court finds this standard has not been met, and therefore a certificate 6 || of appealability is DENIED. CONCLUSION 8 Based on the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its 9 || entirety. (Doc. No. 13.) Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED and 10 || Petitioner’s Amended Petition (Doc. No. 5) is DISMISSED with prejudice. Additionally, 11 || for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that Petitioner 12 ||has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. 13 || § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336. Thus, the Court declines to issue 14 certificate of appealability and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and 15 || terminate this matter. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: September 8, 2026 © 18 Hon. Anthony J. attaglia 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28