Michael Campbell v. Warden Rick Hill

C.D. California

Michael Campbell v. Warden Rick Hill

District Court, C.D. California·Decided May 23, 2023·No. 2:20-cv-01530·Unknown

Opinion

MICHAEL CAMPBELL, Case No. 2:20-cv-01530-JWH (SHK) Petitioner, v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF WARDEN RICK HILL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Respondent.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the relevant records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged in de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner has objected. The Court ACCEPTS the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. In the interest of thoroughness, the Court finds that Ground Three of the Petition fails on both (1) procedural grounds, as stated on pages 15 through 20 of the Report and Recommendation; and (2) on the merits. Specifically, to the extent that Ground Three presents a cognizable federal claim, in light of the evidence presented at trial and the instructions as a whole, there is no likelihood that the jury applied the flight instruction in a way that violated the Constitution. See Houston v. Roe, 177 F.3d 901, 908-09 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that, when a jury instruction is alleged to have shifted the burden of proof, it “must be viewed in the context of the entire trial and the jury instructions taken as a whole,” with “[t]he relevant inquiry” being “whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in an unconstitutional manner” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). In addition, even if the Court could find that the flight instruction was erroneous, any error was harmless in light of the trial record as a whole. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637-38 (1993) (stating that, on harmless error review, our inquiry “is whether, in light of the record as a whole, [the error] had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict” (internal quotation marks omitted)). It is therefore ORDERED as follows: 1. The Petition is DENIED. 1 2. Judgment shall be entered DISMISSING this action with prejudice. 3 4 Dated: May 23, 2023 YW ‘4 Yl 5 HONONABLE JOHN W. HOLCOMB 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MICHAEL CAMPBELL, Case No. 2:20-cv-01530-JWH (SHK) Petitioner, v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF WARDEN RICK HILL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Respondent.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the relevant records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged in de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner has objected. The Court ACCEPTS the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. In the interest of thoroughness, the Court finds that Ground Three of the Petition fails on both (1) procedural grounds, as stated on pages 15 through 20 of the Report and Recommendation; and (2) on the merits. Specifically, to the extent that Ground Three presents a cognizable federal claim, in light of the evidence presented at trial and the instructions as a whole, there is no likelihood that the jury applied the flight instruction in a way that violated the Constitution. See Houston v. Roe, 177 F.3d 901, 908-09 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that, when a jury instruction is alleged to have shifted the burden of proof, it “must be viewed in the context of the entire trial and the jury instructions taken as a whole,” with “[t]he relevant inquiry” being “whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in an unconstitutional manner” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). In addition, even if the Court could find that the flight instruction was erroneous, any error was harmless in light of the trial record as a whole. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637-38 (1993) (stating that, on harmless error review, our inquiry “is whether, in light of the record as a whole, [the error] had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict” (internal quotation marks omitted)). It is therefore ORDERED as follows: 1. The Petition is DENIED. 1 2. Judgment shall be entered DISMISSING this action with prejudice. 3 4 Dated: May 23, 2023 YW ‘4 Yl 5 HONONABLE JOHN W. HOLCOMB 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9

Michael Campbell v. Warden Rick Hill, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Michael Campbell v. Warden Rick Hill (Michael Campbell v. Warden Rick Hill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related