Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01862/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01862-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1

18-CV-1862 JLS (JMA)

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

CEDRIC RAY ALLEN,

Petitioner,

v.

C. LIVSEY,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18-CV-1862 JLS (JMA)

ORDER (1) OVERRULING 

PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS; 

(2) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION; AND 

(3) DISMISSING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(ECF Nos. 7, 8)

Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez’s Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R,” ECF No. 8), recommending that the Court dismiss Petitioner 

Cedric Ray Allen’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1). Also before the Court 

are Petitioner’s Objections to the R&R (ECF No. 8).1 Respondent did not file a reply. 

Having considered the Parties’ arguments and the law, the Court OVERRULES

///

 

1 Petitioner also filed an Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) after Magistrate 

Judge Lopez issued the R&R. The Court will consider the arguments raised in the Opposition as 

objections to the R&R. 

Case 3:18-cv-01862-JLS-LL Document 11 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-CV-1862 JLS (JMA)

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

Petitioner’s Objections, ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety, and DISMISSES the Petition

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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

court’s duties 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 or

specified proposed findings or recommendations 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. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 

673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). In the absence 

of timely objection, however, 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 

advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th 

Cir. 1974)).

ANALYSIS

Magistrate Judge Lopez recommends that the Court Grant Respondent’s Motion to 

Dismiss (ECF No. 7) and dismiss the Petition because it is unexhausted. See R&R at 3. 

Petitioner objects to Magistrate Judge Lopez’s recommendation, arguing that he “fairly 

presented to the state court in both superior court and appellate court with the same claims 

he now urges upon the federal courts.” ECF No. 9 at 1. The Court reviews de novo those 

findings to which Petitioner objects. 

After reviewing the record de novo, the Court must agree with Magistrate Judge 

Lopez’s recommendation. “A state prisoner must exhaust a federal constitutional claim in 

state court before a federal court may consider a claim.” Chambers v. McDaniel, 549 F.3d 

1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A), (c)). “A petitioner has 

satisfied the exhaustion requirement if: (1) he has ‘fairly presented’ his federal claim to the 

highest state court with jurisdiction to consider it, or (2) he demonstrates that no state 

///

Case 3:18-cv-01862-JLS-LL Document 11 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-CV-1862 JLS (JMA)

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

remedy remains available.” Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations 

omitted). 

Here, there is no evidence in the record that Petitioner raised his claims to the 

California Supreme Court. In fact, Petitioner stated that he presented the claims to the 

California Superior Court and California Court of Appeals, but not the California Supreme 

Court, which is the “highest state court with jurisdiction to consider” his claims. See ECF 

No. 9 at 1. Additionally, Magistrate Judge Lopez accessed the electronic database for the 

California state courts and “was not able to find any indication that Petitioner sought review 

from the California Supreme Court of his 2016 claims.” R&R at 3. Accordingly, the Court 

finds the Petition contains only unexhausted claims and is subject to dismissal. The Court

therefore OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Lopez’s 

R&R. 

CONCLUSION 

In light of the foregoing, the Court (1) OVERRULES Petitioner’s Objections (ECF 

Nos. 9, 10), (2) ADOPTS in its entirety Magistrate Judge Lopez’s R&R (ECF No. 8), and 

(3) GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) and DISMISSES the Petition 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE (ECF No. 1). The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability 

because the issues are not debatable among jurists of reason and there are no questions 

adequate to deserve encouragement. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). 

The Clerk of the Court SHALL CLOSE the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: August 12, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01862-JLS-LL Document 11 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3