Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01534/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01534-0/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 - 05cv1534

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO ARRON NEWSOME,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 05-CV-1534 – IEG (RBB)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; AND 

(2) DISMISSING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

WITH PREJUDICE

[Doc. No. 1]

vs.

S.J. RYAN, Warden; BILL LOCKYER,

Attorney General of the State of California,

Respondents.

On August 1, 2005, Mario Arron Newsome (“petitioner”), a state inmate proceeding by

and through counsel, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc.

No. 1.) Petitioner, in his petition, claims that: (1) the trial court violated the Confrontation Clause

of the Sixth Amendment by allowing the use of the detective’s prior reports to impeach witnesses’

failure to recall conversations; (2) his conviction was obtained through juror misconduct because

three jurors considered out-of-court evidence; (3) the prosecution knowingly introduced perjured

testimony as evidenced by inconsistencies in a witness’s testimony at the first trial and the retrial;

(4) the prosecution’s investigator perjured himself at the retrial; (5) the trial court violated his due

process rights by refusing to dismiss the case because the police destroyed evidence following the

first trial; (6) the trial court erred by improperly instructing the jury on felony murder; (7) the trial

court violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment by allowing a witness to

Case 3:05-cv-01534-IEG-RBB Document 12 Filed 01/24/07 Page 1 of 2
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 - 05cv1534

introduce statements from a police report regardless of another witness’s failure to recall the

statements; (8) he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. 

The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule HC.2(a). On August 11, 2006, Magistrate Judge Brooks

issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that the Court deny the petition. 

The court, having reviewed de novo the Magistrate Judge’s Report, and there being no objections

filed to the Report, ADOPTS the report and recommendation in full and DENIES the petition for

habeas corpus with prejudice. Per the Report, the Clerk of Court shall modify the docket in this

case to REMOVE Bill Lockyer from the case, as there is no basis for petitioner to have named the

California Attorney General as a respondent. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 24, 2007

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:05-cv-01534-IEG-RBB Document 12 Filed 01/24/07 Page 2 of 2