Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01892/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01892-2/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

WILLIAM THORNTON,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 11-CV-1892 JLS (RBB)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION;

(2) DISMISSING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND

(3) DENYING MOTION TO

APPOINT COUNSEL

vs.

MATTHEW CATE,

Respondent.

Presently before the Court is Petitioner William Thornton’s First Amended Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF. No. 5), and Magistrate Judge Brooks’s report and recommendation

(“R&R”) recommending the Court dismiss the Petition. (ECF No. 12.) 

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 R&R. 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, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely

objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in

- 1 - 11cv1892

Case 3:11-cv-01892-JLS-RBB Document 18 Filed 06/15/12 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

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)).

Here, Petitioner has failed to timely file objections to Magistrate Judge Brooks’s R&R. 

Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear

error. Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Brooks’s report and

recommendation (ECF No. 12) and (2) GRANTS Respondent’s motion to dismiss the Petition

(ECF No. 9).

Finally, this Court is under an obligation to determine whether a certificate of appealability

should issue in this matter and must “indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the standard for

issuing a certificate, or state its reasons why a certificate should not be granted.” United States v.

Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A COA is authorized

“if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, a petition is dismissed on procedural grounds without reaching the

prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural

ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir.

2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). As both of these components are

necessary to obtain a COA, the Court may resolve either issue first, but resolution of the

procedural issue first has been encouraged by the Supreme Court. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. at

485; see also Petrocelli v. Angelone, 248 F.3d 877, 884 & n.6 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Petitioner’s history of excessive and redundant filings in this district clearly support the

dismissal of this action. As also explained thoroughly in Magistrate Judge Brooks’s R&R, this

Petition is duplicative of several cases previously filed to challenge these same parole conditions

on the same grounds. See Thornton v. Schwarzenneger, et al., Case No. 10-CV-1583-RBB (S.D.

Cal. filed July 28, 2010); Thornton v. Cate, et al., Case No. 11-CV-0190-LAB-JMA (S.D. Cal.

filed Jan. 27, 2011); Thornton v. Cate, et al., Case No. 11-CV-338-IEG-POR (S.D. Cal. filed Feb.

17, 2011); Thornton v. Cavalin, et al., Case No. 11-CV-1484-IEG-POR (S.D. Cal. filed July 1,

- 2 - 11cv1892

Case 3:11-cv-01892-JLS-RBB Document 18 Filed 06/15/12 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

2011); Thorton v. Stainer, et al., Case No. 11-CV-1368-BTM-RBB (S.D. Cal. filed June 17, 2011)

(dismissing petition as duplicative); Thornton v. Cavalin, et al., Case No. 11-CV-0108-BEN-CAB

(S.D. Cal. filed July 1, 2011) (dismissing claims as duplicative and frivolous); Thornton v. Cate et

al., Case No. 11-CV-1485-BEN-WMC (S.D. Cal. filed July 1, 2011) (same); Thornton v. Cavalin,

et al., Case No. 11-CV-2309-MMA-PCL (S.D. Cal. filed Oct. 5, 2011) (same). And the Court has

already dismissed as duplicative later-filed petitions challenging the same parole conditions. See

Thornton v. Cate, et al., Case No. 12-CV-0118-JLS-RBB (S.D. Cal. filed Jan. 13, 2012). Thus,

the Petition is properly deemed frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). See Cato v. United

States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995). Indeed, on appeal in one of these duplicative cases,

the Ninth Circuit ruled that Petitioner’s repeated filings in this district challenging his sex offender

parole conditions are frivolous. Thornton v. Cavalin, et al., No. 11-56358 (9th Cir. Nov. 15, 2011)

(summarily affirming district court on independent basis that the case was duplicative and

frivolous); see also Thornton v. Cate, et al., Case No. 11-CV-2388-JLS-POR (May 4, 2012 Order

detailing procedural history of Thornton’s petitions in this district). 

For these reasons, Petitioner has made no showing that a jurist of reason would find the

Court’s dismissal of this Petition debatable. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a certificate

of appealability on the issue presented for appeal. Additionally, Petitioner’s renewed motion to

appoint counsel (ECF No. 13) is DENIED as moot. This Order concludes the litigation in this

matter. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 15, 2012

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

- 3 - 11cv1892

Case 3:11-cv-01892-JLS-RBB Document 18 Filed 06/15/12 Page 3 of 3