Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01854/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01854-1/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

16cv1854-JAH (AGS)

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

MICHAEL SUTTON

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM D. GORE, WARDEN

 

 Respondent.

Case No.: 16cv1854-JAH (AGS)

ORDER ADOPTING THE 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION AND 

GRANTING THE WARDEN’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

PETITIONER’S FIRST AMENDED 

HABEAS PETITION [DOC NO. 24 ]

BACKGROUND

On July 16, 2016, Petitioner Michael Sutton, a state prisoner proceeding pro se

(“Petitioner”), concurrently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254, and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). See Doc. Nos. 1-2. Petitioner’s IFP motion was granted, but the case was 

nevertheless dismissed without prejudice for failure to allege exhaustion of state judicial 

remedies. See Doc. No. 4. Petitioner timely filed his amended habeas petition on 

September 1, 2016. See Doc. No. 5. Thereafter, on November 3, 2016, Warden William D. 

Gore (“Respondent”), timely filed his motion to dismiss the amended petition, arguing that 

the petition was improperly brought because Petitioner failed to exhaust his state court 

remedies. See Doc. No. 9 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 

Case 3:16-cv-01854-JAH-AGS Document 26 Filed 09/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

16cv1854-JAH (AGS)

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

275 (1971); Wooten v. Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008)). On March 31, 2017, 

Petitioner filed his response in opposition to Respondent’s motion. See Doc. No. 16. On 

July 7, 2017, the Honorable Andrew G. Schopler, United States Magistrate Judge, ordered 

Petitioner to file proof that he has exhausted his state court remedies or show cause why 

his case should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust.1 See Doc. Nos. 22, 23.

On July 27, 2017, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Judge Schopler, submitted a 

report and recommendation (“Report”) to this Court recommending that Respondent’s 

motion to dismiss Petitioner’s habeas petition be granted. See Doc. No. 24. Judge Schopler

found that Petitioner failed to provide evidence that he exhausted his claims despite his 

opportunity to do so. Id. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), objections to the Report were 

due no later than August 10, 2017. No objections were timely received. Accordingly, for 

the reasons set forth below, this Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report in its 

entirety, and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Petitioner’s amended habeas 

petition.

//

//

//

 

1 The docket indicates that Judge Schopler’s order to show cause was sent to 

Petitioner at the Vista Detention Center, in Vista, California; but was returned as 

undeliverable. See Doc. No. 23. Here, the Court notes that “[a] party proceeding pro se

must keep the court and opposing parties advised as to current address. If mail directed to 

a pro se plaintiff by the clerk at the plaintiff’s last designated address is returned by the 

Post Office, and if such 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.” See CivLR 83.11(b); see also Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A 

party, not the district court, bears the burden of keeping the court apprised of any changes 

in his mailing address.”). Sixty days have passed since the Report was returned as 

undeliverable by the Post Office. Petitioner has failed to comply with CivLR 83.11 

requiring that a pro se party keep the court and opposing parties advised as to his current 

address.

Case 3:16-cv-01854-JAH-AGS Document 26 Filed 09/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

16cv1854-JAH (AGS)

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

DISCUSSION

The district court’s role in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation is set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When a party objects to the 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

When no objections are filed, the district court is not required to review the 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 

n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that “de novo review of a [magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation] is only required when an objection is made”); United States v. Reyna–

Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) 

“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”). This rule of law is well 

established within the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Hasan v. Cates, No. 11–cv–1416, 

2011 WL 2470495 (S.D. Cal. June 22, 2011) (Whelan, T.) (adopting in its entirety, and 

without review, a report and recommendation because neither party filed objections to the 

report despite having the opportunity to do so); accord Ziemann v. Cash, No. 11–cv–2496, 

2012 WL 5954657 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2012) (Benitez, R.); Rinaldi v. Poulos, No. 08–cv–

1637, 2010 WL 4117471 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2010) (Lorenz, J.).

Here, the record reflects that no party filed objections to the Report. Thus, in the 

absence of any objections, the Court ADOPTS the Report. For the reasons stated in the 

Report, which is incorporated herein by reference, the amended petition is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment reflecting the 

foregoing.

//

//

Case 3:16-cv-01854-JAH-AGS Document 26 Filed 09/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

16cv1854-JAH (AGS)

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 21, 2017

 

_________________________________

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01854-JAH-AGS Document 26 Filed 09/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4