William Burch v. Charles W. Callahan

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: December 15, 2020
• Docket: 2:18-cv-05899
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WILLIAM BURCH, ) Case No. CV 18-5899-FMO (JPR) 11 ) Petitioner, ) 12 ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND v. ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. 13 ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES W. CALLAHAN, ) 14 Warden, ) ) 15 Respondent. ) 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the 18 Petition, proposed First Amended Petition,1 records on file, and 19 Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge. On November 20 19, 2020, Petitioner, through counsel, filed objections to the 21 R. & R. Respondent did not respond to the objections or file any 22 of his own. 23 Petitioner’s objections mostly simply repeat arguments from 24 his motion for leave to amend and reply, continuing to conflate 25 procedural default with the AEDPA time bar and postconviction and 26 27 1 Petitioner mistakenly filed the proposed First Amended Petition as a separate document instead of lodging it or attaching 28 it as an exhibit to his motion for leave to amend. 1 1 collateral review with direct appeal.2 For the reasons stated in 2 the R. & R., Petitioner’s objections are not well taken. 3 Having reviewed de novo those portions of the R. & R. to 4 which Petitioner objected, the Court accepts the findings and 5 recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. It therefore is ORDERED 6 that Petitioner’s motion for leave to file a first amended 7 petition is granted in part and that no later than 45 days from 8 the date of this Order, Respondent must file an Answer to grounds 9 three and five of the FAP as well as the part of ground six that 10 derives from those two claims. 11 12 DATED: December 15, 2020 /s/ FERNANDO M. OLGUIN 13 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 Petitioner seems to think that the word “postconviction” 23 encompasses direct appeal. (See, e.g., Objs. at 6.) It does not. Rather, because a conviction does not become final until the 24 conclusion of any direct appeal, it refers to a form of collateral review. See, e.g., Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 556 25 (1987) (noting that criminal defendants have no right to counsel on 26 discretionary direct appeal and stating that rule “appl[ies] with even more force to postconviction review”); Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 27 1, 8 n.5 (1984) (noting that in some states, “errors that could have been raised on appeal” but were not “may not be raised for the 28 first time in postconviction proceedings”). 2