Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00969/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00969-1/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

3:16-cv-00969-BEN-BLM

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

KENDRICK LAMOUNT WINE,

Petitioner,

v.

JOSIE GASTELO, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00969-BEN-BLM

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION;

(2) DENYING MOTION TO AMEND;

(3) GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS; and

(4) DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS WITH PREJUDICE

Petitioner Kendrick Lamount Wine filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on April 20, 2016 and a First Amended Petition on May 20, 

2016. (ECF Nos. 1, 4.) Petitioner is serving a sentence of 18 years-to-life imposed 

following a 1991 conviction for second degree murder with a firearm enhancement, 

committed when he was 17 years old and obtained as a result of a guilty verdict. (FAP at 

1-2.) Petitioner challenges a 2015 decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings

finding him unsuitable for release on parole, claiming that he was denied a meaningful 

Case 3:16-cv-00969-BEN-BLM Document 18 Filed 02/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:16-cv-00969-BEN-BLM

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

opportunity for parole in violation of state law and the Eighth Amendment because the 

decision did not give proper consideration to factors unique to juvenile offenders, but 

focused on a failure to adequately complete drug and alcohol problems, something which 

has no bearing on his suitability for parole as he has never had drug or alcohol abuse 

issues. (Id. at 13.)

Petitioner has filed a Motion to Amend the First Amended Petition. Respondent 

has filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Petition. Each party opposed the other’s 

motion. On December 12, 2016, Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major issued a thoughtful 

and thorough Report and Recommendation recommending denial of Petitioner’s Motion 

to Amend, granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, and dismissing the First Amended 

Petition with prejudice. Magistrate Judge Major found that Petitioner’s proposed Second 

Amended Petition does not include new claims, but merely contains argument and 

citations in support of the sole claim presented in this action, and should be construed as 

a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the First Amended Petition. 

(R&R at 3-4.) Magistrate Judge Major also found that Petitioner received all the process 

he was due in connection with his parole hearing, and that he has failed to set forth a 

prima facie case for federal habeas relief because his allegations, even if true, do not 

support a finding that his federal constitutional rights were violated. (R&R at 4.)

Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due January 6, 2017. 

Neither party has filed any objections. For the reasons that follow, the Report and 

Recommendation is ADOPTED.

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a 

magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 

recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

However, “[t]he 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); see also 

Case 3:16-cv-00969-BEN-BLM Document 18 Filed 02/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:16-cv-00969-BEN-BLM

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

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor 

the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations 

that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 

The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. The 

Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 17.) Petitioner’s Motion to 

Amend is DENIED. (ECF No. 9.) See Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 374 

(9th Cir. 1990) (“We have held that a district court does not abuse its discretion in 

denying a motion to amend . . . when the movant presented no new facts but only new 

theories.”). Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. (ECF No. 11.) Fed. Rs. 

Governing § 2254 Cases, R. 4 (“If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached 

exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must 

dismiss the petition.”). The Court DISMISSES the First Amended Petition with 

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-00969-BEN-BLM Document 18 Filed 02/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3