Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00067/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00067-1/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

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

ZEUS ROBLES,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 13-CV-0067-JLS (BLM)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; (2)

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND, (3)

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

(EFC No. 1, 15)

vs.

DAVID LONG, Warden,

Respondent.

Presently before the Court is Petitioner Zeus Robles’s (“Petitioner”) petition for

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1). Also before the

Court is Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major’s report and recommendation (“R&R”)

advising this Court to dismiss Petitioner’s petition. (R&R, ECF No. 15).

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). In the absence of timely objection, however, the Court

“need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to

accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing

- 1 -

Case 3:13-cv-00067-JLS-BLM Document 16 Filed 09/09/13 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

Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States

v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review

the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but

not otherwise.”).

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

(See R&R 10, ECF No. 15) (ordering parties to file objections “no later than July 15,

2013.”). Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned,

and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s

R&R in its entirety and DISMISSES Petitioner’s petition. 

The Court is obliged to determine whether a certificate of appealability should

issue in this matter. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A court may issue a certificate of

appealability “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A petitioner satisfies this standard by

showing that “reasonable jurists” could debate a court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Where, as here, the petition is

dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue when the

petitioner shows, at least, [1] that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and [2] that jurists of

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

ruling.” Id.

Here, Petitioner failed to object at trial to his purported shackling in the presence

of the jury. Thus, the state appellate court found that Petitioner waived this argument

on appeal and the R&R properly concluded that Petitioner was foreclosed from

advancing the argument as a basis for federal habeas relief. (R&R 8–9, ECF No. 15). 

Moreover, Petitioner’s due process claim lacks merit because the state court record

provides no indication that Petitioner’s alleged shackling in the presence of the jury had

any effect on the verdict. Indeed, the only evidence in the record regarding this issue

suggests that the jury never saw the shackles at all. (Id. at 10). Thus, the Court finds

- 2 -

Case 3:13-cv-00067-JLS-BLM Document 16 Filed 09/09/13 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

that no reasonable jurist would debate this Court’s procedural ruling or its denial of

Petitioner’s constitutional claim. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. This Order

concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 9, 2013

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

- 3 -

Case 3:13-cv-00067-JLS-BLM Document 16 Filed 09/09/13 Page 3 of 3