Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02512/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02512-3/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

TYLERRE C. PERRY,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 12cv2512-LAB (JMA)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

RECONSIDERATION; AND

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

[DOCKET NUMBERS 31, 32, 33.]

vs.

G. J. JANDA,

Respondent.

On August 18, 2014, the Court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and also

denied a certificate of appealability. On September 11, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, as

well as a motion for issuance of a certificate of appealability, a motion for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis on appeal, and a motion for clarification of the Court’s order (Docket nos.

31, 32, and 33, respectively). The Court construes the motion for a certificate of appealability

as a motion for reconsideration of the denial of certificate of appealability, and the motion

to clarify the Court’s denial of habeas as a motion to reconsider pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

60.

Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Certificate of Appealability

The Court’s order denying the petition explained why the applicable standards for

habeas relief were far from being met. To summarize, the Court’s ruling was driven by the

- 1 - 12cv2512

Case 3:12-cv-02512-LAB-JMA Document 35 Filed 09/18/14 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

standard of review required under AEDPA. Even if this Court or another court might have

made a different ruling in the first instance, the state courts’ determinations are entitled to

deference. 

The state courts held that, beyond a reasonable doubt, even if any Doyle error

occurred, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Under Cudjo v. Ayers, 698 F.3d 752,

678 (9 Cir. 2012), federal courts must deter to this determination unless it was th

unreasonable. Even if reasonable jurists might have reached a different conclusion about

whether the Doyle error (if any) was harmless, reasonable jurists would not find the state

court’s determination unreasonable. But more than that, the state courts held that no Doyle

error occurred, because no invocation by Perry of his right to remain silent was admitted at

trial. The state courts rejected Petitioner’s argument that the trial court erred in admitting

other statements made in connection with what Perry argues were invocations of his right

to remain silent. This argument was based on United States v. Bushyhead, 270 F.3d 905,

1

912 (9 Cir. 2001), finding it both inapplicable to the facts of Perry’s case, and unpersuasive. th

Because Bushyhead is not ““clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme

Court of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The fact that Bushyhead cites and

interprets Supreme Court precedent does not change this. 

These were the only issues in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that

Perry filed any objections to, and they are they only Perry seeks to appeal. The standard for

issuance of a certificate of appealability, see Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000),

is not met. There is no basis for reconsideration of the denial of a certificate of appealability,

and the motion is therefore DENIED.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 Motion

Perry asks for “clarity for the issues that were overlooked by the Court,” and asks for

“the Court’s opinion and ruling” as to three issues: his Doyle claim, his reliance on 

//

 The state courts held these remarks were made voluntarily and not in response to 1

questioning, and this determination is both reasonable and entitled to deference.

- 2 - 12cv2512

Case 3:12-cv-02512-LAB-JMA Document 35 Filed 09/18/14 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

Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284 (1986), and his discovery motion filed May 21, 2014.

He asks the Court to explain why, in light of these, his petition was denied.

The Doyle claim was ruled on in the Court’s order denying the petition, and has also

been discussed above. There is no reason for reconsideration, and the Court’s order

adequately explains its reasons for rejecting this claim.

Perry cited Wainwright in support of his Doyle claim. Wainwright is inapplicable here,

and the state courts did not disregard or misapply it.Wainwright stands for the proposition

that a defendant’s post-Miranda silence may not be introduced at trial. Perry’s silence was

not introduced at his criminal trial. His actual argument asks the Court to apply Bushyhead,

whose holding is much closer to being apposite.

There was no discovery motion filed on or around May 21, 2014. It’s possible Perry

is thinking of his discovery request filed December 26, 2013. The Court denied that on

January 10, 2014, explaining its reasons for doing so, and no reconsideration or additional

explanation is warranted. In any case, discovery is not warranted, because the Court’s

review is limited to the record before the state courts. See Cullen v. Pinholster, ___ U.S.

____, 131 S.Ct. 1388 (2011).

The Rule 60 motion is therefore DENIED.

Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal fails to attach a prison trust

account statement, and as such is defective. See Rule 3(a)(2) of Rules Governing § 2254

Cases in the United States District Courts. But Perry was already granted leave to proceed

in forma pauperis, and his in forma pauperis status has not been revoked, so his request is

moot. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3); Naddi v. Hill, 106 F.3d 275, 276 (9 Cir. 1997). The th

motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 17, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cv2512

Case 3:12-cv-02512-LAB-JMA Document 35 Filed 09/18/14 Page 3 of 3