Henderson v. Pollard
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — The district judge must “make 6 a de novo determination of those portions of the report
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) regarding a state prisoner's § 2254 habeas petition, which recommended denying the petition as untimely and procedurally defaulted. The district court adopted the R&R in its entirety, denied the petition, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adopt the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in its entirety.“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R in its entirety. (Doc. No. 25.)” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a magistrate's R&R. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), if no objections are filed, the district court reviews for clear error. The order states that neither party filed objections, so the court reviewed for clear error and found none. This is procedurally correct. |
Deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as untimely and procedurally defaulted.“The Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety, construes the motion to dismiss as an Answer to the Petition,” and DENIES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. Nos. 13, 25.)” | unclear | agree with court The district court adopted the magistrate's findings that the petition was untimely and procedurally defaulted. While the order does not explicitly restate the legal standards for timeliness (AEDPA statute of limitations) or procedural default, it incorporates the R&R's reasoning. Assuming the R&R correctly applied the law to the facts, the adoption is appropriate. The order itself does not provide enough detail to independently verify the factual basis for the default, but the procedural mechanism of adoption is sound. |
Decline to issue a certificate of appealability.“The Court further DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of Respondent and close this case.” | unclear | agree with court The court applied the correct standard from Miller-El v. Cockrell and Slack v. McDaniel, requiring a 'substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.' The court found this standard was not met based on the R&R's reasoning. This is a standard application of the COA requirement in habeas cases. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the standard of review for the magistrate's R&R given the lack of objections (clear error). It correctly applies the standard for issuing a certificate of appealability. The adoption of the R&R is procedurally sound. The order is concise and relies on the incorporated R&R for the substantive legal analysis regarding timeliness and procedural default, which is permissible when the R&R is thorough and unobjected to.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS ALLEN HENDERSON, Case No.: 20-cv-00169-AJB-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND 14 M. POLLARD, Warden, RECOMMENDATION and 15 Respondent. (2) DENYING PETITIONER’S 16 PETITION AS UNTIMELY AND 17 PROCEDURALLY DEFAULTED 18 (Doc. Nos. 13, 25) 19 20 21 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Before the Court is Thomas Allen Henderson’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of 24 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) Warden M. Pollard 25 (“Respondent”) filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition and lodged the state court. (Doc. No. 26 13.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher for a Report and 27 Recommendation (“R&R”), which he issued on March 1, 2022. (Doc. No. 25.) The R&R 28 recommends the Court construe Respondent’s motion to dismiss as an Answer to the 1 Petition and deny the Petition. (Id. at 2.) The parties were instructed to file written 2 objections to the R&R with the Court no later than March 17, 2022. (Id. at 10.) 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 5 judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 6 a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]” 7 and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 8 made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. 9 Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). “The statute [§ 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear 10 that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 11 de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 12 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original). Thus, in the absence of timely 13 objection(s), the court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 14 record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s 15 note to 1983 amendment; Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1123. 16 Neither party has filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, and the time to 17 do so has passed. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, 18 and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R 19 in its entirety. (Doc. No. 25.) 20 III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 21 Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules following 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a district court “must 22 issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the 23 applicant.” A certificate of appealability is appropriate “only where a petitioner has made 24 a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 25 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)). The standard requires a petitioner 26 to show that reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition should have been resolved 27 28 1 ||in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement 2 ||to proceed further. (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). For the 3 reasons set forth in the R&R and incorporated herein, the Court finds that this standard has 4 ||not been met and therefore DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 5 |}IV. CONCLUSION 6 Based on the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety, construes the 7 motion to dismiss as an Answer to the Petition,” and DENIES the Petition for Writ of 8 ||Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. Nos. 13, 25.) The Court further 9 || DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to 10 |} enter judgment in favor of Respondent and close this case. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: March 28, 2022 © ¢ 13 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ||* “(T]he Court has the inherent power under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases to construe Respondent’s motion to dismiss as an answer on the merits and Petitioner’s opposition to the motion to 27 || dismiss as a traverse.” Crim v. Benov, No. 10-cv-01600-OWW-JLT, 2011 WL 1636867, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 29, 2011), aff'd, 471 F. App’x 670 (9th Cir. 2012).