Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02975/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02975-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1 

16-cv-2975-AJB (BLM) 

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 

JOSEPH EUGENE SANCHEZ, 

Petitioner,

v. 

CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, 

Respondent.

 Case No.: 16-cv-2975-AJB (BLM) 

ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION; AND 

(2) GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

WITH PREJUDICE 

(Doc. Nos. 8, 27) 

Presently before the Court is Respondent Christian Pfeiffer’s motion to dismiss the 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. No. 8.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate 

Judge Barbara L. Major for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), which was issued on 

August 28, 2017. (Doc. No. 27.) The R&R recommends that the district judge issue an 

order (1) approving and adopting the R&R; (2) finding that the Petition is not timely; and 

(3) directing that Judgment be entered granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss with 

prejudice. (Id. at 11.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by 

Case 3:16-cv-02975-AJB-BLM Document 28 Filed 09/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

16-cv-2975-AJB (BLM) 

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

September 27, 2017, and a reply to the objections no later than October 18, 2017. (Id. at 

11–12.) 

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

judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge 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). However, in the absence of objection(s), 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(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment; 

see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

 Neither party has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Major’s R&R. Having 

reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Major’s R&R; (2) finds 

the Petition untimely; and (3) GRANTS Respondent’s motion to dismiss WITH 

PREJUDICE. 

 When a district court enters a final order adverse to the applicant in a habeas corpus 

proceeding, it must either issue or deny a certificate of appealability, which is required to 

appeal a final order in a habeas corpus proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate 

of appealability is appropriate only where the petitioner makes “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 330 (2003) 

(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)). Under this standard, the petitioner must demonstrate 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.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:16-cv-02975-AJB-BLM Document 28 Filed 09/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

16-cv-2975-AJB (BLM) 

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

Here, the Court finds that reasonable jurists could not debate the Court’s conclusion 

to dismiss with prejudice Petitioner’s claims and therefore DECLINES to issue a 

certificate of appealability. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

Dated: September 28, 2017 

 

 

Case 3:16-cv-02975-AJB-BLM Document 28 Filed 09/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3