Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02948/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02948-2/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

16cv2948-MMA (PCL)

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

FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

W.F. MONTGOMERY, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16cv2948-MMA (PCL)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED 

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

[Doc. No. 13]

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT 

OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND

[Doc. No. 1]

DECLINING TO ISSUE 

CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner Francisco Rodriguez has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

(“petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his institutional administrative 

disciplinary ruling in which he was found guilty of possessing methamphetamine. See

Doc. No. 1. Petitioner asserts there was “insufficient evidence to suuport [sic] a finding 

that petitioner was in constructive possession of a controlled substance 

Case 3:16-cv-02948-MMA-PCL Document 13 Filed 12/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16cv2948-MMA (PCL)

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

(methamphetamine).” Id. at 7. Respondent answered on the merits, requesting the 

petition be denied. Doc. No. 8. Petitioner did not file a traverse. See Docket.

The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis for 

preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and 

Civil Local Rule HC.2. Judge Lewis has issued a thorough and well-reasoned report and 

recommending that the Court deny Petitioner’s claim for relief and dismiss the petition. 

See Doc. No. 11. 

Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1), the 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. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due no later than November 27, 

2017. Doc. No. 11 at 8. To date, no objections have been filed.1 See Docket.

Accordingly, the Court concludes Judge Lewis issued an accurate report and wellreasoned recommendation. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its 

entirety and DENIES Petitioner’s petition with prejudice.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that “the district 

court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse 

to the applicant.” A certificate of appealability is not issued unless there is “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

Under this standard, “a petitioner must ‘show that reasonable jurists could debate whether

(or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different 

manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 

 

1 The Clerk of Court served Petitioner with a copy of the Report and Recommendation via U.S. Mail on 

November 9, 2017. See Doc. No. 11.

Case 3:16-cv-02948-MMA-PCL Document 13 Filed 12/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16cv2948-MMA (PCL)

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

further.’” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted)). For the reasons set forth in 

the Report and Recommendation and incorporated herein, the Court finds that this 

standard has not been met and therefore DECLINES to issue a certificate of 

appealability in this case.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in 

its entirety and DENIES Petitioner’s petition with prejudice. The Court further 

DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02948-MMA-PCL Document 13 Filed 12/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3