Daniel Luis Valadez v. Kim Holland

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: January 16, 2020
• Docket: 2:15-cv-03976
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 5 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL LUIS VALADEZ, ) Case No. CV 15-3976-JGB (JPR) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. 13 Vv. ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 CYNTHIA Y. TAMPKINS, Warden, ) 15 Respondent.

17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the 18 || Petition, First Amended Petition, records on file, and Magistrate 19 || Judge’s June 14, 2016 Report and Recommendation and October 31, 20 || 2019 Supplemental Report and Recommendation, both of which 21 || recommend that judgment be entered denying the Petition and FAP 22 | and dismissing this action with prejudice. 23 On July 11, 2016, Petitioner filed Objections to the 24 | original R. & R., after which the Magistrate Judge stayed this 25 || case to allow him to exhaust in state court a claim based on 26 || People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal. 4th 665, 686 (2016) (holding that 27 || “case-specific out-of-court statements” relied on by prosecution 28 || gang expert are inadmissible hearsay under California law and may

1 also be testimonial and violate defendant’s Sixth Amendment right 2 to confrontation). After exhausting the claim Petitioner moved 3 for leave to file a First Amended Petition, and in the 4 Supplemental R. & R. the Magistrate Judge granted the motion but 5 recommended that the FAP be denied on its merits. On December 6 11, 2019, Petitioner filed Objections to the Supplemental R. & 7 R., in which he mostly simply repeats arguments from the 8 Petition, the FAP, his Reply in support of his motion for leave 9 to amend, and his Objections to the June 14, 2016 R. & R. 10 Petitioner continues to argue alternative interpretations of 11 the evidence to claim that he is actually innocent (and that the 12 evidence was insufficient to convict him). But as he concedes, 13 he has so argued “throughout these proceedings,” including to the 14 jury. (Dec. 11, 2019 Objs. at 7.) The June 14, 2016 R. &. R. 15 already thoroughly considered and appropriately rejected the 16 argument that the evidence was insufficient because he was in 17 rival gang territory the night of the crimes merely “to help his 18 father,” whom he visited “on a fairly regular basis,” with some 19 cleaning. (Id. at 3; June 14, 2016 R. & R. at 16, 49-53; see 20 also Oct. 31, 2019 Suppl. R. & R. at 5-7 (recommending rejection 21 of FAP’s identical actual-innocence claim).) 22 In addition, Petitioner continues to rely on People v. 23 Sanchez, 63 Cal. App. 4th 665, 686 (2016) (Dec. 11, 2019 Objs. at 24 6-7), even though it is not clearly established law for purposes 25 of federal habeas review, as explained to him in the Supplemental 26 R. & R. (Oct. 31, 2019 Suppl. R. &. R. at 13-14). In any event, 27 as the Magistrate Judge correctly noted, the prosecution’s gang 28 expert did not rely on case-specific hearsay, and any error was 2 1 |} harmless. (Id. at 14-17.) Thus, the superior court was not 2 || objectively unreasonable in rejecting Petitioner’s Sanchez and 3 | Confrontation Clause claim. 4 Having reviewed de novo those portions of the R. & Rs. to 5 || which Petitioner has objected, the Court agrees with and accepts 6 || the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. IT 7 || THEREFORE IS ORDERED that judgment be entered denying the 8 || Petition and FAP and dismissing this action with prejudice. ae Self, ———§ DATED: January 16, 2020 _—— ay 10 JESUS JG. BERNAL U.S. “ISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28