Jacob Daniel Heim v. M. Gamboa, Warden, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACOB DANIEL HEIM, Case No.: 24-cv-2476-AJB-DEB

12 ORDER: Petitioner, 13 (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND v. 14 RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 13); M. GAMBOA, Warden, et al., 15 (2) DENYING PETITIONER’S 16 Respondents. MOTION TO RESUME (Doc. No. 4);

17 (3) DENYING PETITIONER’S 18 MOTION TO STAY (Doc. No. 6)

19 (4) DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT 20 OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. No. 1);

21 (5) DECLINING TO ISSUE 22 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 23 Petitioner Jacob Daniel Heim (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has 24 filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 25 San Diego County Superior Court conviction. (Doc. No. 1.) The petition was referred to 26 United States Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher for a report and recommendation 27 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(d). On July 29, 2025, 28 Magistrate Judge Butcher issued an extensive Report and Recommendation that 1 recommends denying Petitioner’s motions to resume and stay, and recommends dismissing 2 the Petition. (Doc. 13.) On August 11, 2025, Petitioner filed a timely objection to the 3 Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No. 14.) Respondents did not file a response to the 4 objections. 5 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the Magistrate 6 Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and 7 Recommendation, and has made a de novo determination. For the reasons herein, the Court: 8 (1) overrules Petitioner’s objections, (2) approves and adopts the Report and 9 Recommendation, (3) denies Petitioner’s Motion to Resume (Doc. No. 4), (4) denies 10 Petitioner’s Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 6), (5) denies the Petition (Doc. No. 1), and (6) 11 declines to issue Petitioner a certificate of appealability. 12 I. BACKGROUND 13 On July 22, 2022, the San Diego County Superior Court sentenced Petitioner to 14 fourteen years in state prison on multiple counts of committing a lewd act on a child under 15 fourteen years old in violation of California Penal Code § 288(a). (Doc. No. 1 at 1–2.) 16 Petitioner represented himself at trial. (Id.) On direct appeal, represented by counsel, 17 Petitioner argued the trial court should not have permitted self-representation because, 18 although he was competent to stand trial, he was not competent to represent himself. (Doc. 19 No. 4 at 24–45.) The California Court of Appeal rejected Petitioner’s claims and affirmed 20 the judgment. (Doc. No. 4 at 9–23.) The California Supreme Court summarily denied 21 review. (Doc. No. 1-8 at 33.) 22 Petitioner then filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court. (Doc. No. 1.) 23 Because it appeared Petitioner had not exhausted his state court remedies, this Court issued 24 an order requiring Heim to either: (1) demonstrate he had exhausted the claims in his 25 Petition; (2) voluntarily dismiss his case, return to state court to exhaust his claims, and 26 refile the exhausted claims; or (3) move to stay this proceeding while he returns to state 27 court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. (Doc. No. 3.) Petitioner elected to move to stay 28 this case while he presented his claims to the state court. (Doc. No. 4.) 1 Petitioner then filed a “Petition for Review” with the California Supreme Court. 2 (Doc. No. 6 at 3–4.) The California Supreme Court returned Petitioner’s filing, explaining 3 it already considered and denied his Petition for Review. (Id. at 2.) Petitioner has now 4 returned to this Court claiming he exhausted his state remedies and seeking to resume his 5 Petition. (Id.) 6 II. LEGAL STANDARD 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 8 judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. If a party wishes to challenge 9 the recommendation, the party must “serve and file specific written objections to the 10 proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (emphasis added). The 11 party’s objections must “specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and 12 recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort 13 v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 14 815, 822 (11th Cir.1989)). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not 15 a general objection to the report.” Id. at 784 (citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 16 (3d Cir.1984)). “The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate 17 judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (emphasis 18 added). After concluding its review, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the 19 recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate 20 judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 21 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). 22 “The statute [§ 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that the district judge must review the 23 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 24 otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis 25 in original). Hence, in the absence of objection(s), the court “need only satisfy itself that 26 there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” 27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment; Reyna-Tapia, 328 28 F.3d at 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 1 Objections that merely restate the arguments made in a petition lack merit. O’Brien 2 v. Cate, No. ED CV 12-1774 JSL JC, 2013 WL 1868961, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2013); 3 see Macort, 208 F. App’x. at 785 (holding that merely reciting language from a previous 4 order of the court or failing to set forth the applicable law is not a specific objection to 5 anything in the report and recommendation that would trigger de novo review by the 6 district court); see also N. Am. Clearing, Inc. v. Brokerage Computer Sys., Inc., 688 F. 7 Supp. 2d 1336, 1339 (M.D. Fla.), aff’d in part, rev’d in part and remanded on other 8 grounds, 395 F. App’x 563 (11th Cir. 2010) (“By merely reprinting verbatim the arguments 9 made in his Motion . . . [Defendant] has failed to ‘specifically identify the portions of the 10 proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis 11 for objection.’”). As to portions of the report to which no objection is made, the Court “may 12 assume the correctness of the magistrate judge’s findings of fact and decide the motion on 13 the applicable law.” Johnson v. Nelson, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 1217 (S.D. Cal. 2001). 14 III. DISCUSSION 15 Although Petitioner’s Objection is timely, the Objection is not proper under Federal 16 Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2). Petitioner’s Objection makes little reference to the 17 Magistrate Judge’s report. Rather, the Objection is a nearly identical recitation of the 18 allegations in the Petition. (Compare Doc. No. 13, with Doc. No. 14.) Because Plaintiff 19 raises no legal basis to reject the Magistrate Judge’s report, his Objection will be overruled. 20 Moreover, after an independent de novo review of the record in this matter, the Court agrees 21 entirely with the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Report and 22 Recommendation. Judge Butcher identified the correct legal standards, applied each 23 standard correctly, considered relevant case law, and reached sound conclusions that this 24 Court has no reason to reject. 25 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the files and records herein, 26 the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, the 27 Court DISMISSES the Petition. 28 1 |}IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 2 When a district court enters a final order adverse to the applicant in a habeas corpus 3 || proceeding, it must either issue or deny a certificate of appealability, which is required to 4 || appeal a final order in a habeas corpus proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate 5 || of appealability is appropriate only where the petitioner makes “a substantial showing of 6 ||the denial of a constitutional right.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 330 (2003) 7 || (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)). A “substantial showing” requires a demonstration that 8 ‘reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims 9 || debatable or wrong.’” Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Slack 10 McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). For the reasons set forth in the Report and 11 |}Recommendation and incorporated here, the Court finds this standard has not been met, 12 |/and therefore a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 13 CONCLUSION 14 Based on the foregoing, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. No. 15 and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety (Doc. No. 13). 16 || Petitioner’s Motion to Resume is DENIED because Petitioner has not exhausted state court 17 ||remedies on any of his sixteen claims. (Doc. No. 6.) Petitioner’s Motion to Stay is 18 || DENIED because Petitioner’s claims are plainly without merit. (Doc. No. 4.) The Court 19 || DISMISSES Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) with prejudice. 20 || Additionally, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds 21 ||that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 22 || See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 23 (2003). Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability and DIRECTS the 24 || Clerk of Court to enter judgment and terminate this matter. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: March 23, 2026 © 27 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 28 United States District Judge