Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00583/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00583-1/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

16-cv-583 JLS (JLB)

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

LIONEL QUINTEROS,

Petitioner,

v.

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16-cv-583 JLS (JLB)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION AND (2) 

DENYING PETITION

(ECF Nos. 1, 16)

Presently before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(“Pet.”), (ECF No. 1), and Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt’s Report and 

Recommendation for Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“R. & R.”), (ECF 

No. 16).

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 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, 

Case 3:16-cv-00583-JLS-JLB Document 17 Filed 06/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16-cv-583 JLS (JLB)

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

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)).

In the present case, Petitioner’s objections were due by May 29, 2017. (R. & R. 24.) 

Nearly a month has passed since the due date, and the Court has heard nothing from 

Petitioner. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to timely object to the Report and 

Recommendation.

1

Finally, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that it is 

well reasoned and contains no clear error. Petitioner claims that his co-Defendant’s attack 

on Counsel during trial—and the several resulting effects—were so inherently prejudicial 

to Petitioner that he was deprived of his constitutional right to trial by an impartial jury.

(See generally Pet.) However, the trial judge conducted appropriate inquiry with the jurors

and dismissed those he felt could no longer be fair and impartial; and all indications are 

that remaining the jurors ultimately delivered a mixed verdict regarding Petitioner precisely 

because they considered only the evidence presented at trial. (See generally R. & R.); see 

also Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993) (explaining that habeas petitioners

“are not entitled to habeas relief based on trial error unless they can establish that it resulted 

in ‘actual prejudice.’ ” (quoting United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 449 (1986)). Further, 

Petitioner’s claims regarding the prejudicial effect of being shackled during trial were 

 

1 Several filings in this case were sent to Petitioner but returned as undeliverable. (ECF Nos. 6, 15.) 

However, these undelivered documents were sent to the same address that Petitioner originally indicated 

on his Petition. (Compare ECF No. 1, with ECF Nos. 6, and 15.) And during the course of this litigation 

Petitioner has previously successfully received documents at that address. (Compare Order Dismissing 

Case Without Prejudice, ECF No. 2 (explaining that Petitioner could proceed with case by submitting “no 

later than May 13, 2016, a copy of this Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to 

pay the fee” (emphases removed)), with ECF No. 3 (filing fee receipt, paid on May 13, 2016).)

Accordingly, Plaintiff was under a duty to notify the Court of any change of address. See Civ. L.R. 

83.11(b) (explaining that if mail is returned and a pro se plaintiff fails to “notify the court and opposing 

parties within 60 days thereafter of the plaintiff’s current address, the court may dismiss the action without 

prejudice for failure to prosecute”).

Case 3:16-cv-00583-JLS-JLB Document 17 Filed 06/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16-cv-583 JLS (JLB)

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

raised and rejected for the first time on appeal, and therefore were denied on an adequate 

and independent state ground that would be improper for this Court to consider on federal 

habeas review. See Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 842 (9th Cir. 1995) (“We do not 

address this contention because it is procedurally barred. The California Supreme Court 

concluded that Bonin had failed to raise properly any objection during his trial.”). And the 

record reflects that even if the jurors did, in fact, see Petitioner in leg or hand restraints, 

such viewing was brief and harmless given the weight of the state’s evidence and the jurors’

ultimately mixed verdict.

Given the foregoing, the Court therefore (1) ADOPTS in its entirety Judge 

Burkhardt’s Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 16), and (2) DENIES WITH 

PREJUDICE the Petition, (ECF No. 1). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-00583-JLS-JLB Document 17 Filed 06/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3