Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00490/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00490-1/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

- 1 - 09cv490

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKY B PAUGH,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 09-CV-490 JLS (JMA)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION, (2)

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND (3)

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

(Doc. No. 15)

vs.

GEORGE A. NEOTTI,

Respondent.

Presently before the Court is Petitioner Ricky B. Paugh’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler’s Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”) advising this Court to deny the petition. (Doc. Nos. 1 & 14.)

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

duties of a district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. “The

district 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.” 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(c); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614,

617 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980). However, in the absence of

timely objection, the Court need “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the

record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court,

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

Case 3:09-cv-00490-JLS-JMA Document 15 Filed 05/17/10 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 - 09cv490

In this case, Petitioner has failed to timely file objections to Magistrate Judge Adler’s R&R.

Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and no contains no clear

error. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in full and DENIES the petition WITH

PREJUDICE.

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 demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's

resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate

to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); see

also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Court must either (1) grant the certificate of

appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or (2) state why a certificate should

not issue. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

This petition raised one legal issue: whether the Petitioner’s trial counsel was ineffective. He

argues that she was ineffective for not telling him that the trial court could impose a greater sentence

than the one indicated at the time of his plea and that she was ineffective for failing to advise him that

his guilty plea could be withdrawn following the imposition of the greater sentence. These legal

questions do not merit a certificate of appealability. Reasonable jurists would agree that the California

Court of Appeal’s denial of Petitioner’s claim was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application

of clearly established federal law. Accordingly, no certificate of appealability should issue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 17, 2010

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00490-JLS-JMA Document 15 Filed 05/17/10 Page 2 of 2