Albert L. Watson v. Stu Sherman

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: November 1, 2020
• Docket: 5:19-cv-01780
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALBERT L. WATSON, Case No. 5:19-cv-01780-JLS-MAA

12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 14 STU SHERMAN, Warden, et al., JUDGE 15 Respondent. 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the other 18 records on file herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States 19 Magistrate Judge (“R&R”). The Court also has reviewed Petitioner’s objections to 20 the R&R, which the Court received and filed on August 25, 2020 (“Objections”). 21 (Objs., ECF No. 25.) As required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the 22 Court has engaged in de novo review of the portions of the R&R to which 23 Petitioner specifically has objected. 24 First, Petitioner argues that the Magistrate Judge should have reviewed his 25 claim in Ground Two de novo because the California Court of Appeal did not 26 provide a “reasoned opinion” rejecting this claim. (Objs., at 2–4.) However, a 27 “reasoned opinion” simply means that the state court explained why it was rejecting 28 1 Petitioner’s claim. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803 (1991) (“Where 2 there has been one reasoned state judgment rejecting a federal claim, later 3 unexplained orders upholding that judgment or rejecting the same claim rest upon 4 the same ground.”). As the Magistrate Judge discussed, the California Court of 5 Appeal provided an explanation for its denial of Petitioner’s claim in Ground Two. 6 (See R&R, ECF No. 22, at 10 (citing Lodgment (“LD”) 4, at 14–15.)) However, 7 the 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) standard of review, rather than de novo review, would 8 apply even if the state court had denied this claim without providing a reasoned 9 opinion. Sully v. Ayers, 725 F.3d 1057, 1067 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Section 2254(d) 10 applies even where, as here, the state court summarily denied the state habeas 11 petition without a reasoned opinion.”). 12 Petitioner also argues that the R&R itself is not a “reasoned opinion” because 13 “neither the parties[’] contentions [n]or the actual facts of the case are cited in the 14 [R&R].” (Objs., at 4.) Setting aside Petitioner’s apparent confusion of the standard 15 of review of state court decisions with this Court’s review of the R&R, Petitioner’s 16 assertion that the Magistrate Judge overlooked the parties’ arguments and the 17 “actual facts of the case” fails. The R&R summarizes the parties’ arguments and 18 addresses each of Petitioner’s claims. (R&R, at 8–9, 11–15.) It also provides a 19 procedural history of the state court and federal habeas proceedings. (Id., at 2–6.) 20 This Court is limited to the state court record, see Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 21 170, 182 (2011), and Petitioner has not highlighted any facts in the state court 22 record that the Magistrate Judge overlooked. 23 Next, Petitioner argues that his claim in Ground One—that the state trial 24 court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the criminal complaint was 25 defective—arises under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 26 (Objs., at 5–7.) He asserts that the reference in his Petition to the Fifth Amendment 27 was a “scrivener’s error,” and that the Magistrate Judge should have known that 28 1 this claim arose under the Sixth Amendment. (Id., at 5.) However, the case 2 Petitioner cites, Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884), instead holds that a 3 claim that a state criminal court lacked jurisdiction would arise under the 4 Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.1 Hurtado, 110 U.S. at 519–20. But 5 in any event, this claim fails for the reasons discussed in the R&R. (See R&R, at 6 11–12.) 7 Petitioner next raises a Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel 8 claim, arguing that his trial and appellate counsel failed to request discovery and to 9 challenge the prosecution’s evidence during the criminal proceedings. (Objs., at 8– 10 10.) Petitioner did not include this claim in his Petition, (see Pet., ECF No. 1, at 6– 11 9), and he concedes that he did not directly raise this claim in the state court 12 proceedings, (Objs., at 10.) The Court declines to exercise its discretion to consider 13 this new claim. See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 622 (9th Cir. 2000); see 14 also, e.g., Blunk v. Ryan, 728 F. App’x 736, 737 (9th Cir. 2018) (summary order) 15 (declining to consider “brand-new stand-alone claim for relief that could have been 16 raised long before the magistrate judge considered his habeas petition” but instead 17 was raised “for the first time in his objections”). 18 Last, Petitioner argues that he is entitled to either an evidentiary hearing or a 19 subpoena of the trial court’s records, in support of his claim in Ground Three 20 regarding the alleged lack of a factual basis for his guilty plea. (Objs., at 11–12.) 21 However, this argument fails because Ground Three does not state a basis for 22 federal habeas relief. See Sully, 725 F.3d at 1075 (“[A]n evidentiary hearing is 23 pointless once the district court has determined that § 2254(d) precludes habeas 24 relief.”); see also Pinholster, 563 U.S. at 203 n.20 (“Because Pinholster has failed 25 to demonstrate that the adjudication of his claim based on the state-court record 26 1 The other case Petitioner cites, Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853 (1975), addresses 27 the requirements of the Sixth Amendment, but does not involve a claim that a state 28 criminal court lacked jurisdiction. See Herring, 422 U.S. at 856–65. 1 || resulted in a decision ‘contrary to’ or ‘involv[ing] an unreasonable application’ of 2 || federal law, a writ of habeas corpus ‘shall not be granted’ and our analysis is at an 3 || end.” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d))). As discussed in the R&R, “the [D]Jue 4 || [P]rocess [C]lause does not impose on a state the duty to establish a factual basis 5 || for a guilty plea absent special circumstances[,]” such as “a defendant’s specific 6 || protestation of innocence[.]” Rodriguez v. Ricketts, 777 F.2d 527, 528 (9th Cir. 7 || 1985); see also Loftis v. Almager, 704 F.3d 645, (9th Cir. 2012) (applying this 8 || holding in a no contest plea case). Here, there are no such special circumstances: 9 || the state court record shows that Petitioner openly admitted the factual basis for his 10 || plea at the hearing. (Reporter’s Transcript, ECF No. 11-1, at 3-6; see also Clerk’s 11 }) Transcript, ECF No. 11-2, at 28.) 12 In sum, the Court finds no defect of law, fact, or logic in the R&R. The 13 || Court concurs with and accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of 14 || the United States Magistrate Judge, and overrules the Objections. 15 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation of 16 || the Magistrate Judge is accepted; and (2) Judgment shall be entered denying the 17 || Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. 18 19 || DATED: November 1, 2020 SNegl A 20 I UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28