Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02006/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02006-1/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

18cv2006-JAH (RBB)

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

IVAN ROLDAN,

Petitioner,

v.

WARREN L. MONTGOMERY, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18cv2006-JAH (RBB)

ORDER:

1) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 11); 

AND

2) GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 9)

INTRODUCTION

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation, (Doc. 

No. 11), issued by United States Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks, recommending that 

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 9), be granted. After careful consideration of 

the entire record, the Court (1) ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation; and (2) GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner, Ivan Roldan, was convicted of murder, three counts of attempted murder, 

and assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury in 1997. (Not. Lodgment Attach. 

Case 3:18-cv-02006-JAH-RBB Document 12 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18cv2006-JAH (RBB)

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[Legal Status Summary], at 1, ECF No. 10.)1 He was sentenced to a prison term of

seventy-nine years to life with the possibility of parole. Id. 

On July 18, 2016, Correctional Officers D. Acosta and R. Dubbe searched the cell 

belonging to Petitioner and Victor Aldana. (Not. Lodgment Attach. #2; In re Roldan, No, 

S245962 (Cal. Sup. Ct. [filed Dec. 13, 2017]) (petition for writ of habeas corpus), at 21, 

Doc. No. 10). During the search, Officer Acosta found several bindles containing black tar 

heroin, “with a total weight of 5.47 grams with packaging.” (Id.). Prison officials charged 

Petitioner with violating section 3016(a) of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations 

for “Possession of a Controlled Substance for Distribution (Heroin)” and issue a Rules 

Violation Report (“RVP”). (Id. at 23, 43-47). On September 18, 2016, Senior Hearing 

Officer J. Coronado conducted a disciplinary hearing in which Petitioner was found guilty 

of distribution of a controlled substance based on the preponderance of the evidence. (Id. 

at 57, 63).

On or about March 23, 2017, Petitioner filed an administrative appeal of the decision 

based on his cellmate (Aldana) accepting responsibility of the drugs and him having no 

control over what his cellmate brings into the cell. (Id. at 71, 75). Petitioner’s appeal was 

permitted to bypass the first level of review, but denied as to the second and third level of 

review.2 (Id. at 71, 81, 87). Following completion of the administrative review process, on 

October 2, 2017, Petitioner filed a petition of habeas corpus in the Superior Court of 

California, County of Imperial. Petitioner’s habeas was denied and he appealed to the 

California Court of Appeal. Petitioner’s appeal was denied by the Court of Appeal, as well 

as the California Supreme Court.

Petitioner filed his federal petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on August 27, 2018 

(Doc. No. 1). On February 20, 2019, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition for 

Writ of Habeas. (Doc. No. 9). Petitioner did not file a response. On June 28, 2019, the 

 

1 The Court cites to documents as paginated on the electronic case filing system.

2 The administrative review process consists of a three-tiered review system. 

Case 3:18-cv-02006-JAH-RBB Document 12 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18cv2006-JAH (RBB)

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

Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No. 11). The Report and 

Recommendation recommends that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be granted and the 

petition be dismissed with prejudice. The Report and Recommendation states, “[A]ny party 

to this action may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties July 

19, 2019.” The docket reflects that no objections to the Report and Recommendation have 

been filed.

REVIEW OF THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 

magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b). The district judge 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). 

The district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation 

to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 

2005); U.S. v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss 

a petition if it "plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner 

is not entitled to relief in the district court . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2254; see also White v. Lewis, 

874 F.2d 599, 602-03 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, it appears plain from the Petition that Petitioner 

is not entitled to federal habeas relief because Petitioner has failed to state a claim 

cognizable under federal habeas. Federal courts may grant habeas relief only to correct 

errors of federal constitutional magnitude. Oxborrow v. Eikenberry, 877 F.2d 1395, 1399 

(9th Cir. 1989) (stating that federal courts are not concerned with errors of state law unless 

they rise to the level of constitutional violation).

After review of the Report and Recommendation, the state habeas litigation, and the 

submissions of the parties, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly found 

that the California Court of Appeal articulated specific and legitimate reasons based on 

substantial evidence in the record for rejecting Petitioner’s claim.

Case 3:18-cv-02006-JAH-RBB Document 12 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18cv2006-JAH (RBB)

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

CONCLUSION 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) the Report and Recommendation, (Doc. No. 

11), is ADOPTED in its entirety; and (2) Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 9), 

is GRANTED. The Clerk shall enter judgment for Respondent and against Petitioner. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2020

Hon. John A. Houston

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-02006-JAH-RBB Document 12 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4