Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02345/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02345-1/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

- 1 - 07cv2345

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHARON YOLANDA WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07CV2345 JLS (JMA)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION, (2)

GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS, and (3)

DENYING PETITION WITH

PREJUDICE

(Doc. Nos. 1, 5, & 9)

vs.

DEBORAH L. PATRICK, Warden

Respondent.

On December 17, 2007, Sharon Yolanda Williams (“petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 arguing that the California state

courts deprived her of due process by failing to strike a 1986 “strike” conviction when sentencing

petitioner for a series of cocaine-related offenses in 2005-06. (Doc. No. 1.) Warden Deborah L.

Patrick (“respondent”) filed a motion to dismiss the petition on February 25, 2008. (Doc. No. 5.)

On August 5, 2008, Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler issued a report and recommendation

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Doc. No. 9.) Magistrate Judge Adler recommended that

this Court grant the motion to dismiss and deny the petition with prejudice. Magistrate Judge

Adler found that the San Diego County Superior Court’s denial of the motion to strike was not an

“irrational or arbitrary” sentencing decision under California law. (Id. at 12 (citing People v.

Superior Court (Alvarez), 14 Cal. 4th 968, 977-78 (1997).) Because the sentencing decision

satisfied the standard prescribed by California law, it was not “so arbitrary or capricious as to

Case 3:07-cv-02345-JLS-JMA Document 10 Filed 09/29/08 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 - 07cv2345

constitute an independent due process . . . violation.” (Id. at 10 (citing Richmond v. Lewis, 506

U.S. 40, 50 (1992).) The parties were ordered to file written objections by August 27, 2008, but

no objections were ever filed. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, a district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is

made.” “When no timely objection is filed, 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 Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th

Cir. 1974)). 

Having reviewed the report and recommendation in the absence of any objection, the Court

finds that Magistrate Judge Adler did not commit clear error in his well-reasoned analysis. 

Therefore, the Court ADOPTS IN FULL the report and recommendation. The Court GRANTS

respondent’s motion to dismiss and DENIES WITH PREJUDICE the petition for a writ of

habeas corpus. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 29, 2008

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02345-JLS-JMA Document 10 Filed 09/29/08 Page 2 of 2