Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02361/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02361-2/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

- 1 - 10CV2361

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD BOOTH,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10CV2361 JLS (CAB)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION (2)

DENYING PETITION FOR

HABEAS CORPUS WITH

PREJUDICE

(ECF Nos. 7 & 13.)

vs.

DARREL ADAMS, et al.,

Defendant.

Edward Booth filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on

November 15, 2010. (ECF No. 1.) He requests relief for a variety of reasons, including

ineffective assistance of counsel during both trial and appeal, several abuses of discretion by the

trial court on evidentiary issues, and deprivation of a fair trial because no African Americans were

impaneled on his jury. Several months after filing his petition, Booth filed a motion for stay and

abeyance so that he could exhaust unexhausted claims before the state courts. (ECF No. 7.) 

Magistrate Judge Bencivengo issued a Report and Recommendation on Booth’s motion to

stay, recommending this Court deny the motion and sua sponte dismiss Booth’s petition with

prejudice. (ECF No. 13.) Judge Bencivengo noted that dismissal was proper for two separate

reasons: not only was Booth’s claim time barred, it was also procedurally defaulted under

adequate and independent state law. (Id. at 10–16.) The R&R and Booth’s objection to the R&R

are presently before the Court for review. 

Case 3:10-cv-02361-JLS-MDD Document 14 Filed 09/02/11 Page 1 of 3
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 - 10CV2361

Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a

district court’s duties regarding a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district

court “shall 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)(c); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447

U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980). In the absence of timely objection, however, the Court “need only

satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the

recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist.

Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

Booth’s objections to the R&R do not discuss Judge Bencivengo’s finding that Booth’s

habeas petition is time barred. (ECF No. 13 at 10–14.) This Court finds no clear error on the face

of the record with regard to that finding and adopts it in its entirety. A merits consideration of

Booth’s claims is time barred.

Booth’s objections center around the procedural default issue instead. The Court finds it

unnecessary to consider the objections, however, because they are moot. The time bar is sufficient

on its own to deny Booth’s habeas petition. Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS

Magistrate Judge Bencivengo’s report and recommendation with regard to the time bar and (2)

DENIES WITH PREJUDICE Booth’s petition for habeas corpus. 

Finally, this Court is under an obligation to determine whether a certificate of appealability

should issue in this matter. A certificate of appealability is authorized “if the applicant has made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A petitioner

satisfies this standard by showing that “reasonable jurists” would debate the Court’s assessment of

the constitutional claims. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Where, as here, the

petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue when the

petitioner shows, at least, [1] that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and [2] that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id.

///

Case 3:10-cv-02361-JLS-MDD Document 14 Filed 09/02/11 Page 2 of 3
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 - 10CV2361

The Court finds that reasonable jurists would agree with this Court’s resolution of

Plaintiff’s claims. The record provides adequate basis for finding that Booth’s habeas petition is

time barred. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability as a result. The Clerk SHALL

close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 2, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02361-JLS-MDD Document 14 Filed 09/02/11 Page 3 of 3