Jonathon J. Kohut v. R. Godwin

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: November 7, 2023
• Docket: 5:22-cv-00398
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JONATHON JOSEPH KOHUT, Case No. EDCV 23-398-MWF (SHK)

12 Petitioner ORDER ACCEPTING REPORTS 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 14 R. GODWIN, Warden, JUDGE 15 Respondent.

16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the relevant 18 records on file, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate 19 Judge recommending the Petition be denied (“First Report,” Docket No. 38), and the 20 Report and Recommendation recommending denial of Petitioner’s Request for 21 Leave to Amend and Second Motion to Stay (“Second Report,” Docket No. 43). 22 The Court has conducted a de novo review of the portions of the Reports to which 23 Objections were directed. Although not required, in an abundance of caution the 24 Court briefly discusses the following points made in the Objections. See United 25 States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 434 (9th Cir. 2023) (“the district court ha[s] no 26 obligation to provide individualized analysis of each objection”); Wang v. Masaitis, 27 416 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 2005) (affirming a cursory district court order 28 summarily adopting, without addressing any objections, a magistrate judge’s report 1 and recommendation). 2 Petitioner’s objection to the First Report’s recommendation as to Ground One 3 is overruled. (Docket No. 47 at 1-4). As explained in the First Report, the state trial 4 court’s findings that no bad faith occurred in the destruction of the photographs after 5 damage during a flood, and that the photographs were only possibly exculpatory, 6 were reasonable. (Docket No. 38 at 17). Further, as explained, there was no 7 apparent exculpatory value before the evidence was destroyed. (Id.). Petitioner has 8 failed to overcome these findings, as well as the First Report’s conclusion that the 9 claim would not have been meritorious and thus Petitioner could not establish cause 10 and prejudice to excuse procedural default of the claim. (Id.) 11 Regarding Ground Two, Petitioner appears to object on the basis that the 12 Court has the discretion to address an unexhausted claim. (Docket No. 47 at 4-5). 13 After finding the ground unexhausted, the First Report did address the merits of 14 Petitioner’s claim (Docket No. 38 at 20-22), and Petitioner makes no attempt to 15 refute that analysis. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“The statute 16 [pertaining to objections review] does not on its face require any review at all, by 17 either the district court or the court of appeals, of any issue that is not the subject of 18 an objection.”). Accordingly, the objection is overruled. 19 Finally, Petitioner’s objection to the First Report’s recommendation as to his 20 ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims in Ground Three never effectively 21 overcomes prejudice. (Docket No. 47 at 5-7). As discussed in the First Report, the 22 evidence was overwhelming. (Docket No. 38 at 23). DNA taken from the victim’s 23 jawline, face, and oral swabs matched Petitioner’s. (Id.). Petitioner chose to speak 24 with investigating officers and cried when they informed him of the DNA match, 25 and he stated that he wanted to apologize to the lady and was sorry for what he did. 26 (Id. at 24). Further, Petitioner’s right palm print matched a latent print lifted from 27 the crime scene. (Id.). Notably, Petitioner makes no objection to the First Report’s 28 discussion of the DNA and palm print, or even acknowledge that evidence. See 1 || Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149. Petitioner’s failure to overcome prejudice is fatal to his 2 || claims in Ground Three and his objections. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 3 || 668, 687 (1984). 4 Further, for the reasons stated in the Second Report, Petitioner’s objection to 5 || the recommendation to deny leave to amend and for a second stay is overruled. 6 || (Docket Nos. 43, 51). 7 Finally, for the reasons stated in the Reports and in this Order, a certificate of 8 || appealability (“COA”) is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); 9 || Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). 10 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 11 (1) Petitioner’s Request for Leave to Amend and Second Motion to Stay 12 || (Docket No. 40) is DENIED; 13 (2) the Petition and a COA are DENIED; 14 (3) Judgment be entered DISMISSING this action with prejudice. 15 | Y □□ 16 || Dated: November 7, 2023 f 7 MICHAEL W. FITZG D United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28