Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01182/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01182-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHUOC LUU,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 13cv1182-MMA (RBB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

[Doc. No. 12]

OVERRULING PETITIONER’S

OBJECTIONS

[Doc. No. 13]

GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 

[Doc. No. 11]

DISMISSING PETITIONER’S

PETITION WITH PREJUDICE

[Doc. No. 1]

vs.

JEFFREY BEARD, Secretary,

Respondent.

Petitioner Phuoc Luu, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for

writ of habeas corpus (“petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Doc. No. 1. 

Petitioner alleges he was denied due process during a prison investigation regarding

his purported involvement in a conspiracy to murder a prison staff member. 

Petitioner also seeks to expunge all references to this allegation from his central file. 

- 1 - 13cv1182-MMA (RBB)

Case 3:13-cv-01182-MMA-RBB Document 14 Filed 06/12/14 Page 1 of 4
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

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, asserting two grounds for dismissal: (1) the

petition is untimely under the statute of limitations, and (2) the petition does not seek

cognizable federal habeas relief. See Doc. No. 11. Petitioner did not file an

opposition to Respondent’s motion.

The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks

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

and Civil Local Rule HC.2. Judge Brooks issued a well-reasoned and thorough

Report recommending the Court grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition

as untimely. See Doc. No. 12. Petitioner filed objections to the Report and

Recommendation. See Doc. No. 13. 

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 does not object to the magistrate judge’s reasoning or conclusions,

but instead attempts to assert a claim of actual innocence under Schlup v. Delo, 513

U.S. 298 (1995). Specifically, Petitioner contends the statute of limitations should

not bar his petition because he is actually innocent of the prison disciplinary charge

of conspiracy. However, “[t]he Schlup exception involves a narrow class of cases . .

. implicating a fundamental miscarriage of justice because a constitutional violation

has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent.” Lee v.

Lampert, 653 F.3d 929, 937 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Schlup, 513 U.S. at 314–15)

(internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Petitioner does not challenge his

- 2 - 13cv1182-MMA (RBB)

Case 3:13-cv-01182-MMA-RBB Document 14 Filed 06/12/14 Page 2 of 4
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

underlying state court conviction,1 but rather the outcome of a “prison disciplinary

matter.” Pet. at 1. Therefore, Schlup is inapplicable. See Schlup, 513 U.S. at 324

(recognizing “the claimed injustice is that constitutional error has resulted in the

conviction of one who is actually innocent of the crime”); see also Sistrunk v.

Armenakis, 292 F.3d 669, 673 (9th Cir. 2002) (“In order to pass through the Schlup

gateway, a petitioner must show that it is more likely than not that no reasonable

juror would have convicted him in the light of the new evidence.”) (internal citation

and quotations omitted). Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s

objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. 

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. 

///

///

//

///

///

1

 In his petition, Petitioner states that he “does not challenge his current commitment offenses.” Pet. at 9. 

- 3 - 13cv1182-MMA (RBB)

Case 3:13-cv-01182-MMA-RBB Document 14 Filed 06/12/14 Page 3 of 4
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, OVERRULES Petitioner’s Objections, GRANTS Respondent’s

Motion to Dismiss, and DISMISSES Petitioner’s petition with prejudice. The Court

DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 12, 2014

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 4 - 13cv1182-MMA (RBB)

Case 3:13-cv-01182-MMA-RBB Document 14 Filed 06/12/14 Page 4 of 4