Samuel Patrick Burns v. Brandon Price

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: June 7, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-06823
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-06823-AB-LAL Document 16 Filed 06/07/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:3354

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 10 SAMUEL PATRICK BURNS, Case No. LACV 21-6823-AB (LAL) 11 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED 12 v. STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 BRANDON PRICE, 14 Respondent. 15 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the Magistrate Judge’s 18 Report and Recommendation, Petitioner’s Objections and the remaining record, and has made a 19 de novo determination. 20 Petitioner argues in his Objections that the Court failed to consider his claim that he was 21 denied his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights to effective and conflict-free counsel, 22 independent from a consideration of Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. (Objections 23 at 2, 4-7.) However, Petitioner has failed to present any clearly established United States 24 Supreme Court precedent recognizing a Fourteenth Amendment due process right to effective or 25 conflict-free counsel that is independent from the right to counsel granted under the Sixth 26 Amendment. See Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70, 77, 127 S. Ct. 649, 166 L. Ed. 2d 482 (2006) 27 (“Given the lack of holdings from this Court regarding” the claim, “it cannot be said that the 28 state court ‘unreasonabl[y] appli[ed] clearly established Federal law.’”); see also Brewer v. Hall, Case P:21-cv-06823-AB-LAL Document16 Filed 06/07/22 Page 2of2 Page ID #:3355

1 | 378 F.3d 952, 955 (9th Cir. 2004) (“If no Supreme Court precedent creates clearly established 2 | federal law relating to the legal issue the habeas petitioner raised in state court, the state court's 3 | decision cannot be contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal 4 | law.”). In fact, to the extent Petitioner’s invoked United States Supreme Court precedent 5 | regarding the right to counsel in his claim here, he relied on Supreme Court precedent premised 6 | on the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See Petition at 44 (citing Glasser v. United States, 315 7 | US. 60, 69-70, 62 S. Ct. 457, 86 L. Ed. 680 (1942)).! To the extent Petitioner might have 8 | presented a valid due process argument, his claim fails for the reasons discussed in the Report 9 | and Recommendation. Specifically, Petitioner has failed to establish an irreconcilable conflict of 10 | interest. Absent such a conflict, Petitioner cannot show the trial court’s failure to substitute 11 | counsel resulted in such fundamental unfairness as to violate due process. See Spencer v. Texas, 12 | 385 US. 554, 563-564, 87 S. Ct. 648, 17 L. Ed. 2d 606 (1967) (“Cases in this Court have long 13 | proceeded on the premise that the Due Process Clause guarantees the fundamental elements of 14 | fairness in a criminal trial... .”). Petitioner’s Objections otherwise lack merit for the reasons 15 | stated in the Report and Recommendation. 16 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 17 1. The Report and Recommendation is approved and accepted; 18 2. Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with 19 prejudice; and 20 3. The Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties. 21 22 (nb. 3 DATED: June 07, 2022 NS HONORABLE ANDRE BIROTTE, JR. 4 United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 7 1 The only other United States Supreme Court case Petitioner cites is Addington v. Texas, 441 US. 4 18, 425, 99S. Ct. 1804, 60 L. Ed. 2d 323 (1979), in which the United States Supreme Court considered the appropriate standard of 3g | proof to be applied in civil commitment proceedings and, in doing so, explained that due process protections apply in the civil commitment context. (Petition at 43.)