Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01494/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01494-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM R. VILTZ,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 12cv1494-MMA (BLM)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

[Doc. No. 37]

DENYING MOTIONS FOR

DISCOVERY, AN EVIDENTIARY

HEARING, AND APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL

[Doc. No. 40]

OVERRULING PETITIONER’S

OBJECTIONS

[Doc. No. 38]

DENYING FIRST AMENDED

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS;

[Doc. No. 8]

DECLINING TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

vs.

L.S. McEWEN, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner William R. Viltz, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, filed a first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (“petition”)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [Doc. No. 8.] Petitioner challenges his underlying

convictions for kidnap for ransom, forcible oral copulation, forcible rape, attempted

forcible rape, making a criminal threat, and evading a police officer with reckless

driving. [Id.] Petitioner asserts various grounds for relief, including denial of the

- 1 - 12cv1494-MMA (BLM)

Case 3:12-cv-01494-MMA-BLM Document 41 Filed 10/25/13 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

right to a fair trial, denial of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments, and ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth

Amendment. [Id.] Respondent answered the petition, and Petitioner filed a

Traverse. [Doc. Nos. 26, 33.] Petitioner also filed motions for discovery, an

evidentiary hearing, and appointment of counsel contemporaneously with his

Traverse. [Doc. Nos. 34, 35, 36.] 

The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn

Major for preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), and Civil Local Rule HC.2. Judge Major issued a well-reasoned and

thorough Report recommending the Court deny the petition. [Doc. No. 37.] Judge

Major also issued an order denying Petitioner’s motions for discovery, an

evidentiary hearing, and appointment of counsel. [Id.] 

Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. [Doc. No. 38.]

 Petitioner also moves for reconsideration of Judge Major’s order denying his

motions for discovery, an evidentiary hearing, and appointment of counsel. [Doc.

No. 40.] 

MOTIONS FOR DISCOVERY, AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, AND APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

The Court construes Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, [Doc. No. 40], as

an objection to a non-dispositive order under Rule 72(a). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 

Pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] party may serve

and file objections to the order within 14 days. . . [and] [t]he district judge in the

case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order

that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Id.

As an initial matter, Petitioner filed his objection beyond the 14-day deadline,

and therefore the objections are not properly before the Court. Even if the

objections were timely filed, Petitioner provides no substantive grounds to

demonstrate that denial of his motions for discovery, an evidentiary hearing, and

- 2 - 12cv1494-MMA (BLM)

Case 3:12-cv-01494-MMA-BLM Document 41 Filed 10/25/13 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

appointment of counsel was “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Petitioner

merely states that he is “diametrically opposed to the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning

on every point therein for rejecting those motions.” [Doc. No. 40 at 1.] The Court

finds that Judge Major’s denial of Petitioner’s motions was not clearly erroneous

and therefore DENIES Petitioner’s motions for discovery, an evidentiary hearing,

and appointment of counsel. 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), the Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the

report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].” 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir.

1989). 

Petitioner raises multiple objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation. [See Doc. No. 38.] Due to the nature of his objections, the Court

has conducted de novo review of the entire record in order to properly consider each

of Petitioner’s objections. The Court finds the objections to be wholly without

merit. For example, Petitioner argues that the magistrate judge erred by applying the

standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) to his sufficiency of

the evidence claim.1

 Instead, Petitioner argues his case is akin to O’Laughlin v.

O’Brien “because only evidence was circumstantial and inferences of guilt were

speculative.” 568 F.2d 287, 308 (1st Cir. 2009). Petitioner is incorrect. In

O’Laughlin, the court in fact applied the Jackson standard and found the specific

facts of that case overcame “the extremely high bar” of habeas review. Id. at 304. 

Here, the magistrate judge applied the appropriate standard and correctly concluded

1

 Petitioner also argues that his claim about “the sufficiency of evidence not received” is not a sufficiency of the evidence claim. [Doc. No. 38 at 11.] The Court finds no merit in this argument. The magistrate judge correctly construed his claim as a sufficiency of the evidence claim. 

- 3 - 12cv1494-MMA (BLM)

Case 3:12-cv-01494-MMA-BLM Document 41 Filed 10/25/13 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that there was substantial evidence supporting the jury’s verdict, including both

direct and circumstantial evidence. As previously noted, Petitioner’s numerous

other objections are without merit, and the Court declines to discuss them in further

detail.

Accordingly, the Court concludes the Judge Major issued an accurate report

and well-reasoned recommendation that the petition be denied. The Court

OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections and ADOPTS the Report and

Recommendation in its entirety. The Court DENIES Petitioner’s first amended

petition with prejudice.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

 Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that “the

district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final

order adverse to the applicant.” A certificate of appealability is not issued unless

there is “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(2). Under this standard, a petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could

debate whether the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that

the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003), quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation and incorporated

by reference herein, the Court finds that this standard has not been met and therefore

DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability in this case.

The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 25, 2013

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 4 - 12cv1494-MMA (BLM)

Case 3:12-cv-01494-MMA-BLM Document 41 Filed 10/25/13 Page 4 of 4