Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00233/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00233-0/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

- 1 - 06cv0233 WQH(PCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY PENTON,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06-CV-0233 WQH (PCL)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION AND

GRANTING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST TO AMEND

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, Warden,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (doc. no. 18)

filed on August 14, 2006 by the Honorable Peter C. Lewis, United States Magistrate Judge. The

Report and Recommendation set September 11, 2006, as the deadline for either party to file

objections. Neither party filed objections. However, on September 20, 2006, Petitioner filed a

Request to Amend (doc. no. 19). The Court hereby adopts Magistrate Judge Lewis’s Report and

Recommendation in its entirety, and grants Petitioner’s Request to Amend (doc. no. 19). 

BACKGROUND

The Court hereby incorporates by reference the background set forth in the Report and

Recommendation. The following is a summary of certain key facts. 

On November 8, 2000, Petitioner was convicted in San Diego Superior Court of robbery,

attempted robbery, and false imprisonment. As a result of three sentencing enhancements being

found, he was sentenced to fifty-four years and eight months in prison. Petitioner’s direct appeal was

Case 3:06-cv-00233-WQH-RBM Document 20 Filed 10/02/06 PageID.<pageID> 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

- 2 - 06cv0233 WQH(PCL)

denied, and the California Supreme Court denied his Petition for Review on January 15, 2003.

Petitioner then filed various Petitions for a Writ of Habeas Corpus with the state courts, including a

November 8, 2004 Petition, January 12, 2005 Supplemental Petition, and July 26, 2005 Second

Supplemental Petition, all filed with the California Supreme Court. On January 16, 2006, the

California Supreme Court denied the Petitions without comment. 

Petitioner filed the instant federal Petition on January 31, 2006. In it, he sets forth thirteen

grounds for relief. On April 12, 2006, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition (doc. no. 8),

arguing that it was “mixed,” containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Specifically,

Respondent contended that claims 10-13 were unexhausted. On June 21, 2006, Petitioner filed an

Opposition, in which he conceded that claim 13 was unexhausted and requested its voluntary

dismissal, but disputed Respondent’s contentions that claims 10-12 were unexhausted. In his August

14, 2006 Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Lewis found that claims 10 and 11 were

exhausted, but that claim 12 was unexhausted. Magistrate Judge Lewis agreed to the dismissal of

claim 13 as Petitioner requested. Neither party filed objections. On September 20, 2006, Petitioner

filed a Request to Amend, in which he sought leave to delete claim 12 from his Petition. 

RULING OF THE COURT

When no objections are filed, the district court may assume the correctness of the findings of

fact by the Magistrate Judge and decide the motion on the applicable law. Campbell v. United States

Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974). The failure to file objections relieves the district court

of the burden to give de novo review to findings of fact; the conclusions of law must be reviewed de

novo. Brilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School

Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)). In the instant matter, aside from setting forth the undisputed

procedural history, Magistrate Judge Lewis made no factual findings. After de novo review of all

conclusions of law, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation filed on August 14, 2006 in its

entirety. 

“[T]he doctrine of exhaustion requires a petitioner to present his claims to a state court for

review before seeking relief in federal court.” Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 657 (9th Cir. 2005).

When a district court is faced with a “mixed petition” presenting both exhausted and unexhausted

Case 3:06-cv-00233-WQH-RBM Document 20 Filed 10/02/06 PageID.<pageID> 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

- 3 - 06cv0233 WQH(PCL)

claims, the district court must dismiss it, and provide the prisoner with the choice of returning to state

court to exhaust his claims, or amending or resubmitting the petition to present only exhausted claims;

or the Court may stay the mixed petition to allow the petitioner to return to state court to present

unexhausted claims, upon a finding of good cause for the failure to exhaust. See id. at 657-58, 660-61.

In order to exhaust a state claim, a petitioner must present the substance of the federal claim to the

state’s highest court on direct or collateral review. Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982). As set

forth in the Report and Recommendation, applicable law requires that the essential facts and legal

theories in both the federal and state claims be the same, Belmontes v. Brown, 414 F.3d 1094, 1117

(9th Cir. 2005), and that the petitioner clearly argue to the highest state court that the claim is brought

under the United States Constitution, alleging both a factual and legal basis for federal relief, Weaver

v. Thompson, 197 F.3d 359, 364 (9th Cir. 1999). 

The Court has examined Petitioner’s original, Supplemental, and Second Supplemental

Petitions to the California Supreme Court, as well as the instant Petition filed in U.S. District Court,

and concludes that Magistrate Judge Lewis correctly found claims 10 and 11 of the instant Petition

to have been fairly presented to the California Supreme Court, and therefore exhausted. The Court

further concludes that Magistrate Judge Lewis correctly found that claim 12 of the instant Petition was

not fairly presented to the California Supreme Court, and is therefore unexhausted. Accordingly,

Magistrate Judge Lewis correctly found the instant Petition to be mixed. In addition, the Court finds

the voluntary dismissal of claim 13 to have been appropriate. The Court therefore ADOPTS the

Report and Recommendation. 

In his Request to Amend, Petitioner moves the Court to delete ground 12 of his Petition, which

Magistrate Judge Lewis found to have been unexhausted, so that he may proceed with grounds 1-11.

The Court interprets this to be Petitioner’s election to proceed by amending his Petition to delete the

claim found to have been unexhausted. Although the Request is premature, having been filed prior

to the Court’s adoption of the Report and Recommendation, the Court has now adopted the Report and

Recommendation, and therefore GRANTS the Request to Amend. Accordingly, Respondent’s

Motion to Dismiss (doc. no. 8) Petitioner’s mixed Petition is GRANTED, and it is ORDERED that

the Clerk is directed to file the First Amended Petition attached to Petitioner’s Request to Amend. 

Case 3:06-cv-00233-WQH-RBM Document 20 Filed 10/02/06 PageID.<pageID> 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

- 4 - 06cv0233 WQH(PCL)

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Court ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the Report and

Recommendation filed on August 14, 2006 (doc. no. 18). Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. no.

8) is GRANTED, and Petitioner’s Request to Amend (doc. no. 19) is GRANTED. The Clerk is

directed to file the First Amended Petition attached to Petitioner’s Request to Amend. 

DATED: October 2, 2006

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00233-WQH-RBM Document 20 Filed 10/02/06 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4