Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01040/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01040-3/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 - 10cv1040w

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED LEVAO,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 10-CV-1040 W (NLS)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

[DOC. 35], AND (2) GRANTINGIN-PART AND DENYING-INPART PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND

AMENDED PETITION [DOC. 33]

 v.

D.T. LEWIS, Warden,

Respondent.

On September 23, 2011, Petitioner United Levao filed a motion to amend his

First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“FAP”) to include newly exhausted

claims. (Doc. 33.) Respondent opposed. (Doc. 34.) Because Levao’s newly exhausted

claims are not independently timely, only claims that relate back to his original petition

may be added to the FAP. (See Doc. 12 at 7.)

On October 25, 2011, Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes issued a Report and

Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Court grant-in-part and deny-inpart Levao’s motion to amend. (Doc. 35.) Specifically, the Report recommended

granting leave only to add Levao’s claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to:

(1) “properly prepare for a hearing on the motion to suppress evidence of statements

Case 3:10-cv-01040-W-NLS Document 36 Filed 01/17/12 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 - 10cv1040w

[Levao] made to his mother in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments,” and (2)

“effectively object to the admission of photo identification evidence.” (Id. at 7.) The

Report also ordered that any objections were to be filed by November 28, 2011, and any

reply filed by December 12, 2011. (Id.) To date, no objection has been filed, nor has

either party requested additional time to do so.

A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s Report are set forth in

Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District

Courts. See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 654 (2005) (acknowledging that a “discrete

set of Rules governs federal habeas proceedings launched by state prisoners”). Rule

8(b) provides that a district judge “must determine de novo any proposed finding or

recommendation to which objection is made.” In United States v. Reyna-Tapia, the

Ninth Circuit interpreted identical language in 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(c) as making clear

that “the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original); see also Wang

v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a

R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.”) (emphasis added)

(citing Renya-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949

(S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting the magistrate judge’s report without review

because neither party filed objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so);

Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).

The Court recognizes that other district courts within the Ninth Circuit,

including this Court, have previously held that de novo review of the magistrate judge’s

findings of law is required even where a party does not object to the report. See Johnson

v. Nelson, 142 F.Supp.2d 1215, 1217 (S.D. Cal. 2001); Avratin v. Bermudez, 420 F.

Supp.2d 1121, 1122-23 (S.D. Cal. 2006); Cordeiro v. Hernandez, 2010 WL 364193

(S.D. Cal. 2010). These cases are all rooted in the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Britt v.

Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452 (9th Cir. 1983). The Court finds that

Case 3:10-cv-01040-W-NLS Document 36 Filed 01/17/12 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 - 10cv1040w

reliance on Britt, however, is no longer appropriate given the Ninth Circuit’s more

recent en banc decision in Renya-Tapia. See Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d

1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that Renya-Tapia overruled Britt’s requirement

that district courts review findings of law even where no objections filed). 

Upon review, the Court accepts Judge Stormes’s recommendation, ADOPTS the

Report in its entirety, and GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART Petitioner’s

motion to amend. Levao must file his second amended petition no later than February

17, 2012. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 17, 2012

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01040-W-NLS Document 36 Filed 01/17/12 Page 3 of 3