Castano v. Cowin

• Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts
• Decided: January 14, 2020
• Docket: 1:18-cv-12488
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-12488-RGS

FRANKLIN CASTANO, Petitioner

v.

BRAD COWEN, Respondent

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

January 14, 2020 STEARNS, D.J. I agree with Magistrate Judge Boal’s thorough and comprehensive Report, specifically: (1) that Grounds two and three of the petition raise alleged errors of state law that this court has no jurisdiction to correct; and (2) that Grounds one and four of the petition fail to identify any aspect of the Supreme Judicial Court’s (SJC) analysis that can be said to have been contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law clearly established by the United States Supreme Court.1 Finally, I agree that there is no merit

1 The Magistrate Judge correctly points to Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (Ground one), and the pertinent discussion in United States v. Myers, 294 F.3d 203 (1st Cir. 2002) (Ground four), as defining the contours of the relevant and controlling precedential federal law. to Castano’s perfunctory and unsupported claim of actual innocence (Ground five). See Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998).2

Consequently, the Recommendation is ADOPTED and the petition is DISMISSED with prejudice.3 Any request for the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 is DENIED, the court seeing no meritorious or substantial basis supporting an appeal. The Clerk is

instructed to close the case. SO ORDERED. /s/ Richard G. Stearns__________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 Finally, as the Magistrate Judge notes, a federal habeas court has no jurisdiction to reduce a verdict pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 33E. That power is solely the prerogative of the SJC.

3 Castano has filed no objection to the Report and Recommendation, nor has he asked for additional time to do so.