Oscar Israel Duenas v. R. Godwin

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: July 15, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-04873
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-04873-CAS-SHK Document 18 Filed 07/15/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:2052

O 1 2

4 5 6

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 11 OSCAR ISRAEL DUENAS, Case No. 2:21-cv-04873-CAS (SHK)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION 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 in this case, 18 and all relevant pleadings and other documents filed and lodged in this action, 19 including the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 20 12, “Report”), and Petitioner’s Objection to the Report (Dkt. 17, “Objection”). 21 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has 22 conducted a de novo review of the matters to which objections have been stated. 23 Petitioner’s assertions and arguments have been reviewed carefully. The 24 Court, however, concludes that nothing set forth in the Objection or otherwise in 25 the record for this case affects or alters, or calls into question, the findings and 26 analysis set forth in the Report or warrants staying this action. 27 Petitioner raised four grounds in his petition: (1) insufficiency of the 28 evidence to support the gang enhancement, (2) improper admission of testimonial Case 2:21-cv-04873-CAS-SHK Document 18 Filed 07/15/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:2053

1 hearsay, (3) improper admission of significant gang evidence, and (4) sentencing 2 error. See Report at 2. The Report found that Ground Three is procedurally 3 barred, Ground Four is not cognizable, and Grounds One and Two should be 4 denied because “the state court’s rejection of Grounds One and Two was 5 not contrary to and did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly 6 established Supreme Court law.” Id. 7 Petitioner’s Objection did not take issue with any specific legal or factual 8 conclusions in the Report. Rather, it stated that Petitioner “objects” to the Report, 9 and that Petitioner “will move the Court for an Order of Interlocutory Appeal.” 10 Objection at 1. The only issue raised in Petitioner’s Objection is that Petitioner’s 11 institution of confinement was experiencing a shortage of librarians, and that the 12 two available librarians could not “cover” all of the libraries at Petitioner’s 13 institution. Id. at 2. Petitioner contends that, as a result, he was not “provide[d] 14 ample opportunity to conduct legal research for a proper response and defense.” 15 Id. 16 The Court finds that Petitioner’s Objection is without merit. Petitioner fails 17 to explain how more librarians would have permitted him to further develop his 18 Objection, and does even identify what portions of the Report, if any, he would’ve 19 have objected to with additional librarian support. Accordingly, the Court finds 20 and concludes that Petitioner’s Objection is without merit. 21 Moreover, in a case where an inmate was denied library access on seven 22 days out of the twenty days allotted for filing objections to magistrate's 23 recommendation, the Ninth Circuit found that the petitioner’s “vague and 24 unsubstantiated allegations that his ‘ability to pursue this matter was impaired’ and 25 that his objections to the R & R would have been somehow better if his library 26 access was not curtailed simply [did] not amount to a constitutionally cognizable 27 injury.” Grimes v. Small, 34 F. App'x 279, 281 (9th Cir. 2002). 28 2 Case 2:21-cv-04873-CAS-SHK Document Filed 07/15/22 Page 3of3 Page ID #:2054

1 The same is true here. Petitioner’s Objection does not address the Report’s 2 | findings, and his vague claim regarding a lack support from prison librarians fails 3 | to state a constitutionally cognizable injury. Accordingly, having completed its 4 | review, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations set forth in the 5 | Report. 6 In accordance with the foregoing, that the Petition is DENIED, and that 7 | Judgment be entered DISMISSING this action with prejudice. g | Dated: July 15, 2022 Abruotia Uh. Arigde—_ 10 HONORABLE CHRISTINA A. SNYDER ~ United States District Judge 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28