Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00983/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00983-0/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

SIMON CRUZ,

Petitioner,

Case No. 14cv983 DMS (WVG)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

vs.

DAVID LONG, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner Simon Cruz, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. He challenges on due process

grounds for insufficiency of the evidence his state court conviction for aggravated

sexual assault on his step daughter who was under the age of 14. The petition was

referred to United States Magistrate William V. Gallo for a report and recommendation

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(d).

On January 25, 2011, Petitioner was convicted by a state court jury on two counts

of aggravated sexual assault, twenty-one counts of lewd act with a child with the added

allegations of substantial sexual conduct with a child under 14 years of age and an

offense committed against more than one victim, four counts of lewd act with a child

with the added allegation of an offense committed against more than one victim, five

counts of lewd act with a child with the added allegation of substantial sexual conduct

with a child under 14 years of age, and six counts of lewd act upon a child 14 or 15

- 1 -

Case 3:14-cv-00983-DMS-WVG Document 17 Filed 11/25/14 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

years of age. Petitioner challenges only the constitutionality of his conviction on count

23 for aggravated sexual assault.

Because the Petition raised no factual disputes and the record had been fully

developed in state court proceedings, Judge Gallo recommended denying Petitioner’s

request for an evidentiary hearing. See Cullen v. Pinholster, __ U.S. __; 131 S.Ct. 1388

(2011) & 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). Upon review of the fully briefed Petition and the

extensive lodgment, he also found that the state appellate court conclusion that the

evidence presented at trial was sufficient to satisfy constitutional due process

requirements was neither contrary to nor involved an unreasonable application of

clearly established federal law, and was not an unreasonable determination of the facts

in light of the evidence presented in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Accordingly,

he recommended denying the Petition.

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" on

a dispositive matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of

the parties for all purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "The

court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and

recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no

objections are filed, the de novo review is waived. Section 636(b)(1) does not require

review by the district court under a lesser standard. 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) (emphasis in original); see Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1225-26

& n.5 (D. Ariz. 2003) (applying Reyna-Tapia to habeas review). 

In the absence of objections, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. 

Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing is denied and the petition is dismissed

/ / / / /

- 2 -

Case 3:14-cv-00983-DMS-WVG Document 17 Filed 11/25/14 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

for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. For the same reasons,

certificate of appealability is also denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 25, 2014

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

- 3 -

Case 3:14-cv-00983-DMS-WVG Document 17 Filed 11/25/14 Page 3 of 3