Ewalan v. State of Washington

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: May 10, 2022
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01497
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 JOSEPH LOCHUCH EWALAN, CASE NO. C20-1497JLR-SKV 11 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION 12 DON HOLBROOK, 13 Respondent. 14

15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Before the court is United States Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan’s report and 17 recommendation. (R&R (Dkt. # 85).) Magistrate Judge Vaughan recommends that this 18 court (1) deny Petitioner Joseph Lochuch Ewalan’s amended habeas corpus petition 19 (Am. Pet. (Dkt. # 13)); (2) deny multiple motions filed by Mr. Ewalan (see Mot. for 20 Transcript (Dkt. # 39); Mot. to Expand Record (Dkt. # 58); 2d Mot. to Expand Record 21 (Dkt. # 59); Mot. to File Lawsuit (Dkt. # 79)); (3) deny Mr. Ewalan’s request for an 22 evidentiary hearing; (4) dismiss this action with prejudice; and (5) deny a certificate of 1 appealability. (See generally R&R.) Mr. Ewalan, who is proceeding in forma pauperis 2 (“IFP”) and pro se in this matter, filed timely objections to the report and

3 recommendation, along with an affidavit and multiple exhibits.1 (Obj. (Dkt. # 86); Aff. 4 (Dkt. # 87); Exs. (Dkt. # 88).) Having carefully reviewed all of the foregoing, along with 5 all other relevant documents, and the governing law, the court ADOPTS Magistrate 6 Judge Vaughan’s report and recommendation; DENIES Mr. Ewalan’s objections; and 7 DISMISSES Mr. Ewalan’s amended habeas corpus petition with prejudice. 8 II. ANALYSIS

9 A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and 10 recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge must 11 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 12 objected to.” Id.; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en 13 banc). Upon review, “[a] judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in

14 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. 15 § 636(b)(1). Because Mr. Ewalan is proceeding pro se, the court must interpret his 16 petition and objections liberally. See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles Cnty., 339 F.3d 920, 925 17 (9th Cir. 2003). 18 In her report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Vaughan carefully reviewed

19 the fourteen grounds for relief asserted by Mr. Ewalan in his amended habeas corpus 20 petition. (See R&R at 4-6 (listing the fourteen grounds for relief); Am. Pet.) She 21

1 Respondent Don Holbrook has neither filed objections nor responded to Mr. Ewalan’s 22 objections. (See generally Dkt.) 1 recommends that the court find that grounds 2, 9, 13, and 14 are barred for failure to 2 exhaust and are procedurally defaulted (id. at 6-17) and that the remaining grounds fail

3 on the merits (id. at 17-59). She further recommends that the court deny Mr. Ewalan’s 4 multiple motions to expand the record, for an evidentiary hearing and “to file a lawsuit.” 5 (Id. at 59-67.) Finally, she recommends that the court deny a certificate of appealability 6 for failure to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” (Id. at 7 67 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3)).) The court has thoroughly examined the report and 8 recommendation, Mr. Ewalan’s objections thereto, and the balance of the record before it.

9 On de novo review, the court finds Magistrate Judge Vaughan’s reasoning persuasive in 10 light of that record. Therefore, the court independently denies Mr. Ewalan’s objections 11 and motions for the same reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Vaughan’s report and 12 recommendation. 13 III. CONCLUSION

14 For the foregoing reasons, the court: 15 (1) ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 85) in its entirety; 16 (2) DENIES Mr. Ewalan’s amended petition for habeas corpus (Dkt. # 13) and 17 DISMISSES this action with prejudice; 18 (3) DENIES Mr. Ewalan’s motions (a) to order Respondents to produce the

19 court of appeal transcript (Dkt. # 39); (b) for leave to expand the record under Rule 7 20 (Dkt. # 58); (c) to expand the record by two additional items (Dkt. # 59); and (d) to file a 21 lawsuit (Dkt. # 79); and 22 (4) DENIES a certificate of appealability. 1 The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send copies of this order to Mr. Ewalan, to 2 counsel for Mr. Holbrook, and to Magistrate Judge Vaughan.

3 Dated this 10th day of May, 2022. 4 A 5 6 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22