Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00659/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00659-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN CHRISTOPHER ROYLE,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 12cv659-LAB (RBB)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

vs. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

DAVID LONG,

Respondent.

Kevin Royle, a prisoner in state custody following a conviction for first degree murder

and assault with a semi-automatic firearm, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Royle argued that the state trial court violated his due process rights

by denying his request for a jury instruction on imperfect self-defense, and on justifiable

homicide based on self-defense; and that prosecutorial misconduct violated his fair trial, due

process, and jury trial rights. He contended that during closing arguments, the prosecutor

improperly appealed to the jury’s passions and prejudices. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, this

matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Ruben Brooks for report and recommendation. 

Respondent David Long filed an answer, but Royle filed no traverse. Nine months

after the traverse should have been filed, on June 3, 2013, Judge Brooks issued his report

and recommendation (the “R&R”), recommending denying the petition on the merits. The

R&R is very substantial, at 35 pages, and addressed the merits of Royle’s claims in detail. 

The R&R concluded Royle’s claim concerning the jury instructions failed on the merits. It

- 1 - 12cv659

Case 3:12-cv-00659-LAB-RBB Document 20 Filed 08/30/13 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

concluded that although the prosecutorial misconduct claims might have been procedurally

defaulted, reaching the merits was more expeditious. It then reviewed the claims on the 1

merits, and found they should be denied.

Royle’s objections to the R&R were originally due July 1, but he was granted an

extension until August 15. The order granting that extension (Docket no. 18) reminded him

that failure to file objections within the time permitted may waive the right to appeal the

Court’s order. On July 26, the Court rejected by discrepancy order his motion for stay and

abeyance, so that he could return to state court and exhaust his state remedies as to

another issue he says he overlooked. Since then, Royle has filed no objections, nor sought 2

additional time in which to do so. He did, however, attempt to file a motion to reconsider the

discrepancy order rejecting his motion for stay and abeyance. That motion was again

properly rejected, and in any event had no bearing on the claims he raised in his petition

here, nor on whether the R&R was correct. 

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). "The district judge must

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly

One unusual occurrence at trial was that the jury’s foreperson objected to some of 1

the prosecutor’s remarks urging them to see the case from the victim’s perspective, and the

court sustained the objection. On state habeas review, this was held to have been forfeited

because defense counsel didn’t request a curative instruction. It isn’t certain whether

California’s law requiring a defense objection in order to preserve error in such a situation

was clear, consistently applied, and well-established. See Wells v. Maass, 28 F.3d 1005,

1010 (9 Cir. 1994) (state rule giving rise to procedural default must be “clear, consistently th

applied, and well-established at the time of the petitioner’s purported default.”) Rather than

address that thorny issue, the R&R correctly found that the state court’s alternative basis for

its ruling—that the alleged misconduct was harmless---was reasonable. In addition to the

reasons given in the R&R, the Court would also add that a juror’s objection to the

prosecutor’s argument suggests, if anything, they were likely to be swayed in Royle’s favor,

not against him.

Judge Brooks rejected the motion for filing because it lacked a certificate of service. 2

But the Court also notes that stay and abeyance would have been futile. The California

Supreme Court denied his petition for review on March 2, 2011, and his conviction became

final 90 days after that, on June 1, 2011. He filed his petition in this Court on March 5, 2012.

Even if he could show he filed his state petition as to his new claim “within a reasonable

time” and “without substantial delay,” which is questionable, see In re Harris, 5 Cal.4th 813,

828 n.7 (1993), AEDPA’s one-year limitations period on that claim has long expired, because

the pendency of a federal habeas petition does not toll it. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2);

Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181–82 (2001).

- 2 - 12cv659

Case 3:12-cv-00659-LAB-RBB Document 20 Filed 08/30/13 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

objected to." Id. "A judge of the court 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). This

section does not require some lesser review by the district court when no objections are filed. 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The "statute makes it 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) (en banc).

Here, it is clear Royle could have filed objections to the R&R, but did not do so. The

Court has reviewed the R&R, finds it to be correct, and ADOPTS it. The petition is DENIED.

Bearing in mind both the absence of clearly established federal law on important

issues, and the deference due to state court determinations, the Court concludes that jurists

of reason would not find this resolution debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000). The certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 30, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cv659

Case 3:12-cv-00659-LAB-RBB Document 20 Filed 08/30/13 Page 3 of 3