Reyes v. Allison
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Report and Recommendation recommending the dismissal of a state prisoner's habeas corpus petition for failure to state a claim. The court adopted the Report, granted the motion to dismiss, denied the request to convert the petition to a § 1983 complaint, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a Report and Recommendation where no objections were filed. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, the district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommendation. The court found the report accurate and well-reasoned, which is a permissible exercise of discretion. |
Grant of Respondents' Motion to Dismiss“GRANTS the motion to dismiss” | unclear | agree with court The order states the motion was for 'failure to state a claim' and that the Magistrate Judge recommended granting it. The District Judge adopted this recommendation. While the specific legal basis (e.g., procedural default vs. merits) is contained in the underlying Report (Doc. No. 13) which is not provided, the procedural mechanism of adopting the R&R is correct. The dismissal is without leave to amend, which is consistent with a finding that the petition fails to state a claim on the merits or is procedurally barred in a manner that amendment would not cure. |
Denial of Request to Convert Petition to § 1983 Complaint“DENIES Petitioner’s request to convert the Petition into a § 1983 complaint” | unclear | agree with court Courts have discretion to deny conversion of a habeas petition to a civil rights complaint, particularly when the claims are not suitable for § 1983 review or when the petitioner has not demonstrated that conversion is appropriate. The order notes dismissal is without prejudice to filing a separate § 1983 complaint, preserving the petitioner's rights. |
Declination to Issue Certificate of Appealability“DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability” | substantial evidence | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) and *Miller-El v. Cockrell*, requiring a 'substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.' The court found this standard was not met based on the reasons in the R&R. This is the correct legal standard for denying a COA in a habeas case. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for the R&R, notes the lack of objections, and adopts the recommendation. It correctly applies the *Miller-El*/*Slack* standard for the Certificate of Appealability. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order adopting an R&R where no objections were filed. It relies on the underlying R&R for the substantive reasons for dismissal, which is standard practice.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLOS REYES, Case No. 21-cv-0632-MMA (KSC)
12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED 13 v. STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;
14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., [Doc. No. 13]
15 Respondents. GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION 16 FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND 17 [Doc. No. 6] 18 DECLINING TO ISSUE A 19 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 20 21 22 Petitioner Carlos Reyes (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 23 petition for writ of habeas corpus (the “Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Doc. 24 No. 1. On July 15, 2021, Respondents Kathleen Allison and Xavier Becerra 25 (“Respondents”) filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, to which Petitioner 26 filed a response. See Doc. Nos. 6, 12. The matter was referred to United States 27 Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford for preparation of a Report and Recommendation 28 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Civil Local Rule HC.2. Judge Crawford issued a 1 thorough and well-reasoned Report recommending that the motion be granted. See Doc. 2 No. 13. 3 Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. 4 § 636(b)(1), the Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report 5 . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 6 the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].” 28 U.S.C. 7 § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). 8 Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due no later than December 15, 9 2021. Doc. No. 13 at 7. To date, no objections have been filed, and the time for doing so 10 has expired. See Docket. 11 The Court finds Judge Crawford has issued an accurate Report and well-reasoned 12 recommendation that the motion to dismiss be granted. Accordingly, the Court 13 ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. 14 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a 16 district court that dismisses or denies a habeas petition to grant or deny a certificate of 17 appealability in its ruling. See Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. 18 § 2254. A certificate of appealability is not issued unless there is “a substantial showing 19 of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Under this standard, a 20 petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition should have 21 been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve 22 encouragement to proceed further. Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) 23 (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). For the reasons set forth in the 24 Report and Recommendation and incorporated herein, the Court finds that this standard 25 has not been met and therefore DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 26 CONCLUSION 27 Based on the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in 28 its entirety, GRANTS the motion to dismiss, DENIES Petitioner’s request to convert the 1 || Petition into a § 1983 complaint, and DISMISSES the Petition without leave to amend. 2 || Dismissal is without prejudice to Petitioner filing a § 1983 complaint. The Court further 3 || DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to 4 || enter judgment in favor of Respondents and terminate this case. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: January 10, 2022 7 Mbihul MU lolbe □□ 5 8 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28