Rayon Jones v. Madden

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-00446-JWH-MAR Document 24 Filed 02/21/23 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:1134

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYON JONES, Case No. 2:22-cv-0446-JWH (MAR) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF 14 MADDEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Respondent. 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 2/22-cv-00446-JWH-MAR Document 24 Filed 02/21/23 Page 2of2 Page ID #:1135

1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for a Writ of 2 | Habeas Corpus, the records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the 3 | United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged in de nove review of those 4 | portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has objected. The Court ACCEPTS the 5 | findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. To the extent that Petitioner 6 | argues in the Objections that the prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 7 | (1963), by failing to turn over “all” exculpatory evidence, rather than merely the video 8 | surveillance evidence identified in the Petition and addressed in the Report and 9 | Recommendation, Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. Such a conclusory 10 | allegation is insufficient to establish a Brady violation. See Sanchex v. Hedgpeth, 706 11 | F. Supp. 2d 963, 986 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (“vague and completely unsubstantiated” 12 | allegations of suppressed evidence are insufficient show Brady error). It is therefore 13. | ORDERED as follows: 14 1. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. 15 2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 16 3. Judgment shall issue accordingly. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 | Dated: February 21, 2023 20 2 MM 2 Lo 23 24 25 26 27 28