Randy John Morasch v. Bryan Phillips

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 25, 2025
• Docket: 5:23-cv-00470
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

12 Petitioner,

13 v. ORDER ACCEPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND 14 BRYAN PHILLIPS, RECOMMENDATION

15 Respondent.

16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of 18 Habeas Corpus (Dkt. No. 1), Respondent’s Answer (Dkt. No. 17), Petitioner’s Brief in 19 Rebuttal (Dkt. No. 24), the Report and Recommendation of the United States 20 Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 27), Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and 21 Recommendation (Dkt. No. 28), and all the records and files herein. The Court has 22 engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to 23 which objections were made. 24 1 The Report recommends denial of the Petition and dismissal of this action with 2 prejudice. (Dkt. No. 27.) Petitioner’s objections to the Report (Dkt. No. 28) do not 3 warrant a change to the Report’s findings or recommendations. 4 Petitioner objects that his trial counsel did not investigate his defenses and call 5 witnesses to testify. (Dkt. No. 28 at 1-2.) As the Report found, the record showed that

6 trial counsel had strategic reasons for not calling various witnesses at trial. (Dkt. No. 27 7 at 27.) Such witnesses might have given negative testimony, and other witnesses were 8 unavailable or uncooperative. Id. (citing Lord v. Wood, 184 F.3d 1083, 1095 (9th Cir. 9 1999) (“Few decisions a lawyer makes draw so heavily on professional judgment as 10 whether or not to proffer a witness at trial.”) 11 Petitioner objects that his counsel never provided a declaration on his trial 12 strategy. (Dkt. No. 28 at 2-3.) As the Report found, it was Petitioner’s burden to prove 13 his allegations. (Dkt. No. 27 at 22.) And as the Report further found, even if Petitioner 14 had proven that witnesses were available to testify, they would not have overcome the 15 strong presumption that counsel “rendered adequate assistance and made all significant 16 decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment.” Id. (quoting Strickland

17 v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690 (1984). The record showed that counsel had strategic 18 reasons for not calling various witnesses at trial. (Id. at 23.) 19 Petitioner requests that this action be dismissed without prejudice so he can 20 conduct additional investigations. (Dkt. No. 28 at 3.) Because the Court has 21 adjudicated and denied his claims on the merits, the action is dismissed with prejudice. 22 The Court overrules the objections and accepts the findings and 23 recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 24 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 The Report and Recommendation is accepted (Dkt. No. 27); 3 ||2. The Petition is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice (Dkt. No. 1); and 4 ||3. Judgment is to be entered accordingly. 5 6 || DATED: March 25, 2025 f, : : < ; R . At... 7 THE HOMORABLE MONICA RAMIREZ ALMADANI 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

22 23