Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00114/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00114-1/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

 Petitioner filed an amended claim on November 21, 2008, which the Court ordered to be

considered as part of Petitioner’s original petition on November 25. [Doc. Nos. 5, 6.] 

- 1 - 09cv114

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL RICHARD FLACCO,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 09 CV 0114 MMA (NLS)

ORDER:

ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION;

[Doc. No. 23]

OVERRULING PETITIONER’S

OBJECTIONS;

[Doc. No. 25]

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. No. 1]

vs.

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary of the

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation,

Respondent.

Petitioner Paul Richard Flacco, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [Doc. No. 1] challenging his state court convictions

for assault and battery.1

 Petitioner also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the

great bodily injury enhancement that resulted in three years of Petitioner’s six year sentence. 

Respondent filed an answer to the petition [Doc. No. 18], and Petitioner filed a traverse [Doc. No.

20]. Subsequent to the transfer from the Central District of California, the matter was referred to

Case 3:09-cv-00114-MMA-NLS Document 26 Filed 05/13/10 Page 1 of 3
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 - 09cv114

United States Magistrate Nita L. Stormes for preparation of a Report and Recommendation

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.3. 

Judge Stormes issued a well-reasoned and thorough Report recommending the petition be

denied in its entirety. Petitioner timely filed objections [Doc. No. 25], challenging the findings

and conclusions of law set forth in the Report and Recommendation. Respondent did not file an

objection to the Report, or a response to Petitioner’s objections.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, the district court “shall 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.” In the instant case, Petitioner objects

to two conclusions contained in the Report: (1) that Petitioner voluntarily waived his right to a jury

trial; and (2) that there is sufficient evidence to support the great bodily injury enhancement. The

Court has considered the merits of Petitioner’s objections, and overrules them, as the findings and

conclusions are amply supported by the record. Judge Stormes identified the correct legal

standards, applied each standard correctly, considered relevant case law, and reached sound

conclusions that this Court has no reason to reject.

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the files and records herein, the

Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

the petition and a writ of habeas corpus shall not issue in this case.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

“The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final

order adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11 foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A petitioner may not seek an

appeal of a claim arising out of a state court detention unless the petitioner first obtains a

certificate of appealability from a district judge or a circuit judge under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Fed. R.

App. Proc. 22(b). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1), a certificate of appealability will issue only if the

petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

/ / /

Case 3:09-cv-00114-MMA-NLS Document 26 Filed 05/13/10 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 - 09cv114

For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner has not made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, a certificate of

appealability should not issue in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 13, 2010

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00114-MMA-NLS Document 26 Filed 05/13/10 Page 3 of 3