Juan Carlos Morales v. Superior Court of California, County of Ventura

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: September 4, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02018
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 JUAN CARLOS MORALES, Case No. 2:24-cv-02018-FLA (KES)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS v. AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 14 VENTURA COUNTY SUPERIOR JUDGE COURT, 15 Respondent. 16

17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the court has reviewed the Petition, the records 19 on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. 20 Further, the court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report 21 to which objections have been made. 22 The Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommends denial of the 23 Petition, which challenges Petitioner’s pretrial detention, and dismissal of this 24 action with prejudice. Dkt. 20. Petitioner’s objections to the Report, Dkt. 21, do 25 not warrant a change to the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendation. 26 Petitioner objects that he has overcome the Report’s finding that his claims 27 are procedurally defaulted, in light of a recent decision by the California Supreme 28 Court. Dkt. 21 at 2-4. The Report found that Petitioner’s claims challenging Judge 1 Ayers’s bail order are procedurally defaulted because the Ventura County Superior Court denied the claims as untimely filed. Dkt. 20 at 9; Dkt. 1-1 at 1616. 2 Petitioner objects that the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in In re 3 Harris, 16 Cal. 5th 292 (2024), “bears significantly on this case” and quotes 4 extensively from that decision in stating the standards for bail determinations. Dkt. 5 21 at 2-3. 6 This objection fails to overcome the Report’s conclusion that Petitioner’s 7 claims challenging Judge Ayers’s bail order are procedurally defaulted. As the 8 Report noted, to overcome the procedural default, Petitioner must show cause and 9 prejudice. Dkt. 20 at 10. Petitioner has not shown cause, which requires him to 10 show that his claim “is so novel that its legal basis [was] not reasonably available to 11 counsel, [such that Petitioner] has cause for his failure to raise the claim in 12 accordance with applicable state procedures.” Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1, 16 (1984). 13 The California Supreme Court’s ruling in In re Harris does not qualify as cause for 14 Petitioner’s procedural default. 15 Petitioner, in challenging Judge Ayers’s bail order, did not rely on any legal 16 arguments that did not become reasonably available until after In re Harris was 17 decided. Instead, in his state habeas petition, Petitioner raised, in essence, two legal 18 challenges: Judge Ayers (1) erroneously assumed the truth of the charges set out in 19 the unverified criminal Complaint; and (2) “engaged in rote decision making again 20 and again without stating any valid basis for detaining [Petitioner] without bail in 21 the record or in the minutes for the sake of review.” Dkt. 1-1 at 207-08, 223-24. 22 Legal grounds for these arguments were reasonably available to Petitioner 23 before he filed his state habeas petition. Indeed, in his state habeas petition, 24 Petitioner cited several supporting legal authorities in making these arguments and 25 argued Judge Ayers had misapplied then-existing legal authorities. Id. (citing 26 United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 751 (1987); In re York, 9 Cal. 4th 1133, 27 1148 (1995); and In re Humphrey, 11 Cal. 5th 135, 155 (2021)). Thus, Petitioner 28 1 || has not shown cause for his procedural default by virtue of the recent decision by 2 || the California Supreme Court. See Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 537 (1986) 3 | (“[T]he question is not whether subsequent legal developments have made 4 || counsel’s task easier, but whether at the time of the default the claim was 5 || ‘available’ at all.”); see also Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 130 (1982) (the 6 || perceived futility of a claim is not cause for procedural default). 7 The court accepts the report, findings, and recommendations of the 8 || Magistrate Judge. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered 3 || denying the Petition with prejudice. 10 ‘1 || Dated: September 4, 2024 12 FERNAND@’L. AENLLE2ROCHA United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28