Randy John Morasch v. Bryan Phillips

Opinion

RANDY JOHN MORASCH, Case No. 5:23-00470-MRA (ADS)

Petitioner,

v. ORDER ACCEPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND

Respondent.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. No. 1), Respondent’s Answer (Dkt. No. 17), Petitioner’s Brief in Rebuttal (Dkt. No. 24), the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 27), Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 28), and all the records and files herein. The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections were made. The Report recommends denial of the Petition and dismissal of this action with prejudice. (Dkt. No. 27.) Petitioner’s objections to the Report (Dkt. No. 28) do not warrant a change to the Report’s findings or recommendations. Petitioner objects that his trial counsel did not investigate his defenses and call witnesses to testify. (Dkt. No. 28 at 1-2.) As the Report found, the record showed that

trial counsel had strategic reasons for not calling various witnesses at trial. (Dkt. No. 27 at 27.) Such witnesses might have given negative testimony, and other witnesses were unavailable or uncooperative. Id. (citing Lord v. Wood, 184 F.3d 1083, 1095 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Few decisions a lawyer makes draw so heavily on professional judgment as whether or not to proffer a witness at trial.”) Petitioner objects that his counsel never provided a declaration on his trial strategy. (Dkt. No. 28 at 2-3.) As the Report found, it was Petitioner’s burden to prove his allegations. (Dkt. No. 27 at 22.) And as the Report further found, even if Petitioner had proven that witnesses were available to testify, they would not have overcome the strong presumption that counsel “rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment.” Id. (quoting Strickland

v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690 (1984). The record showed that counsel had strategic reasons for not calling various witnesses at trial. (Id. at 23.) Petitioner requests that this action be dismissed without prejudice so he can conduct additional investigations. (Dkt. No. 28 at 3.) Because the Court has adjudicated and denied his claims on the merits, the action is dismissed with prejudice. The Court overrules the objections and accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The Report and Recommendation is accepted (Dkt. No. 27); 2. The Petition is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice (Dkt. No. 1); and 3. Judgment is to be entered accordingly. DATED: March 25, 2025 f, : : < ; R . At... THE HOMORABLE MONICA RAMIREZ ALMADANI United States District Judge