Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01003/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01003-1/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

CHARLES E. MOSES, JR.,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 12cv1003-MMA (JMA)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

[Doc. No. 31]

OVERRULING PETITIONER’S

OBJECTIONS

[Doc. No. 36]

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS;

[Doc. No. 1]

DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO AMEND THE

PETITION

[Doc. No. 30]

DECLINING TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

vs.

DR. JEFFREY BEARD, Secretary, 

Respondent.

Petitioner Charles E. Moses, Jr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a

petition for writ of habeas corpus (“petition”) pursuant to Title 28 of the United

States Code, section 2254, challenging his conviction following a bench trial for

willful infliction of corporal injury upon a cohabitant. See Doc. No. 1. Petitioner

raises three separate grounds for relief. Respondent answered the petition, arguing

- 1 - 12cv1003

Case 3:12-cv-01003-MMA-JMA Document 37 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 5
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 the Court should deny all of Petitioner’s claims and dismiss the petition with

prejudice. See Doc. No. 25. Petitioner filed a traverse. See Doc. No. 27. 

Additionally, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Request to Supplement Additional

Grounds,” in which Plaintiff seeks to add a fourth claim for habeas relief. See Doc.

No. 30.

The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler for

preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),

and Civil Local Rule HC.2. Judge Adler has issued a detailed and well-reasoned

report recommending that the Court deny Petitioner’s claims for relief without an

evidentiary hearing and dismiss the petition with prejudice. See Doc. No. 31. 

Moreover, Judge Adler construed Petitioner’s request to add a fourth claim as a

motion to amend the petition, and recommends the Court deny Petitioner’s motion

to amend the petition. Petitioner objects to the Report and Recommendation on

multiple grounds. See Doc. No. 36. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections and ADOPTS the Report and

Recommendation in its entirety. 

DISCUSSION

1. Standard of Review

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). 

2. Analysis

Petitioner objects to Judge Adler’s findings and recommendations as to all

claims raised in his petition. Petitioner’s objections are primarily based on the

arguments raised in his petition and traverse. Judge Adler thoroughly addresses

- 2 - 12cv1003

Case 3:12-cv-01003-MMA-JMA Document 37 Filed 05/21/14 Page 2 of 5
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

those arguments in the Report and Recommendation. After conducting a de novo

review of the entire record, the Court finds that Petitioner’s objections are without

merit. Further discussion is warranted only with respect to Petitioner’s claim that

the trial court transcripts were “flawed” and “falsified.” 

Petitioner claims that his due process rights were violated because of

numerous inaccuracies and omissions in the trial transcript. The Supreme Court has

recognized that substantive due process includes a criminal defendant’s right to

obtain a trial transcript for purposes of appeal. Mayer v. Chicago, 404 U.S. 189,

193–95 (1971). A court need only provide an indigent defendant with a “record of

sufficient completeness” to prepare an appeal; irrelevant or extraneous portions of

the transcript may be omitted. Id. at 194–95 (citation omitted). There is no

constitutional right to a totally accurate transcript of a state criminal trial. Tedford

v. Hepting, 990 F.2d 745, 747 (3d Cir. 1993). A constitutional violation would

occur only if the inaccuracies in the transcript adversely affected appellate review in

the state courts. Id.; see also United States v. Anzalone, 886 F.2d 229, 232 (9th Cir.

1989) (“[A]ssuming there were omissions in the transcripts, appellant cannot prevail

without a showing of specific prejudice.”).

While Petitioner claims that his trial transcripts were altered or flawed, he

produces no evidence to support this assertion. Rather, Petitioner’s claim is based

on unsupported speculation. It has long been established that a reporter’s transcript

is presumed to be correct. Abatino v. United States, 750 F.2d 1442, 1445 (9th Cir.

1985); United States v. Hoffman, 607 F.2d 280, 286 (9th Cir. 1979); Soo Hoo Hung

v. Nagle, 3 F.2d 267, 268 (9th Cir. 1925); see also People v. Kronemyer, 189 Cal.

App. 3d 314, 358–59 (1987) (characterizing reporter’s transcript as “presumptively

correct”). The party seeking to rebut this presumption must present a reason why a

court should suspect an inaccuracy. Norris v. Schotten, 146 F.3d 314, 333 (6th Cir.

1998) (holding that a petitioner’s speculation is insufficient to question trial

transcripts as inaccurate). Petitioner’s unsupported assertions of inaccuracy cannot

- 3 - 12cv1003

Case 3:12-cv-01003-MMA-JMA Document 37 Filed 05/21/14 Page 3 of 5
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

serve to rebut the presumption and are without merit. 

Moreover, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate prejudice arising from any

alleged alteration or omission. Petitioner’s speculation that inaccurate portions of

the record may have reflected reversible error is not enough. See Bransford v.

Brown, 806 F.2d 83, 86 (6th Cir. 1986) (explaining that a petitioner must present

some “modicum of evidence” that omissions from trial transcript denied right to fair

appeal). 

Accordingly, the Court concludes Judge Adler issued an accurate report and

well-reasoned recommendation that both the petition and the motion to amend the

petition be denied. The Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections and ADOPTS

the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court DENIES Petitioner’s

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). Petitioner has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability as to

any claims or issues raised in his petition.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

- 4 - 12cv1003

Case 3:12-cv-01003-MMA-JMA Document 37 Filed 05/21/14 Page 4 of 5
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

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation

in its entirety and DISMISSES Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with

prejudice. The Court DECLINES to issue a Certificate of Appealability.

The Clerk of Court shall terminate this case and enter judgment in favor of

Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 21, 2014

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 5 - 12cv1003

Case 3:12-cv-01003-MMA-JMA Document 37 Filed 05/21/14 Page 5 of 5