Kevin Dale Best v. Karin Arnold

Opinion

1 2

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

9 10 KEVIN DALE BEST, CASE NO. C25-1689JLR 11 Petitioner, ORDER v. 12 KARIN ARNOLD, 13 Respondent. 14

15 Before the court are (1) United States Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson’s 16 report and recommendation, in which she recommends that the court deny pro se 17 Petitioner Kevin Dale Best’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, dismiss 18 this action with prejudice, and deny a certificate of appealability; and (2) Mr. Best’s 19 objections thereto. (R&R (Dkt. # 20); Obj. (Dkt. # 21); see Petition (Dkt. # 6).) A 20 district court has jurisdiction to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 21 on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or 22 modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate 1 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “The statute makes it clear that the district judge must 2 review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is

3 made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 4 2003) (en banc). 5 Mr. Best raises six objections to the report and recommendation. First, he objects 6 to the report and recommendation’s inclusion of a recitation of background facts from a 7 Washington Court of Appeals case that predated his trial. (Obj. at 3-4.) Second, he 8 objects to Magistrate Judge Peterson’s determination that the state courts reasonably

9 rejected his claim that the jury’s verdict in his case was not based on sufficient evidence. 10 (Id. at 4-6.) Third, he objects to Magistrate Judge Peterson’s determination that the 11 cumulative error doctrine did not require that his convictions be vacated. (Id. at 6-9.) 12 Fourth, he objects to the denial of his objections to Respondent’s submission of the 13 record of his state court proceedings. (Id. at 9-10.) Fifth, he objects to Magistrate Judge

14 Peterson’s conclusion that the prosecutor in his state-court case provided a race-neutral 15 explanation for using a peremptory strike against an Asian juror. (Id. at 10-11.) Finally, 16 Mr. Best objects to Magistrate Judge Peterson’s recommendation that the court deny a 17 certificate of appealability. (Id. at 11-12.) 18 The court has carefully considered the report and recommendation, Mr. Best’s

19 objections, the relevant portions of the record, and the governing law. Having reviewed 20 the report and recommendation de novo in light of Mr. Best’s objections, the court agrees 21 with Magistrate Judge Peterson’s analysis and recommendations. Accordingly, the court 22 OVERRULES Mr. Best’s objections (Dkt. # 21); ADOPTS the report and 1 recommendation (Dkt. # 20); DENIES Mr. Best’s petition for writ of habeas corpus; 2 DISMISSES this action with prejudice; and DENIES a certificate of appealability. The

3 Clerk is DIRECTED to send copies of this order to Mr. Best and to Magistrate Judge 4 Peterson. 5 Dated this 22nd day of May, 2026. 6 A 7 8 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22