Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00870/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00870-1/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

17cv870-LAB (AGS)

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

FABIAN ALEXANDER PROFFITT,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN KEETON,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv870-LAB (AGS)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION; AND

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner Fabian Alexander Proffitt, a prisoner in state custody pursuant to a 

California state court judgment,1 filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 

' 2254. 

The case was originally filed in the Central District of California, but was transferred 

to this District, because Proffitt was convicted and sentenced in San Diego.2 The matter 

was then referred to Magistrate Judge Andrew Schopler for report and recommendation. 

Judge Schopler issued his report and recommendation (the “R&R”) on May 1, which

/ / /

 

1 Proffitt is being held at the La Palma Correctional Center in Eloy, Arizona. La Palma is an out-of-state 

correctional facility of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

2 Proffitt pled no contest to robbery with enhancement allegations that he used a dangerous weapon and 

had a prior “strike” felony. (Pet. at 2.) 

Case 3:17-cv-00870-LAB-AGS Document 17 Filed 05/29/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv870-LAB (AGS)

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

recommended that the petition be denied as time-barred. Objections to the R&R were due 

by May 15, but Proffitt has filed none. 

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and 

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly 

objected to.” Id. “A judge of the court 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). 

This section does not require some lesser review by the district court when no objections 

are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985). The “statute makes it clear that the 

district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if 

objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir.2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original).

The Court accepts the R&R’s unobjected-to factual recitations as correct. Based on 

these, the R&R’s conclusion that Proffitt’s petition is time-barred is correct. 

Furthermore, a review of the record on appeal shows that the California Supreme 

Court denied Proffitt’s appeal with a citation to In re Robbins, 18 Cal. 4th 770, 780 (1998), 

indicating it was untimely. See Thorson v. Palmer, 479 F.3d 643, 645 (9th Cir. 2007) 

(holding that citation to page 780 of In re Robbins means the California Supreme Court 

found the habeas petition untimely). “When a postconviction petition is untimely under 

state law, ‘that [is] the end of the matter’ for purposes of [28 U.S.C.] § 2244(d)(2).” Pace 

v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 414 (2005) (quoting Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 226 

(2002)).

In addition, although Proffitt’s petition mentions Due Process, his sole claim is that 

the state trial court misapplied state law governing sentence enhancements. (Pet. at 5, 17.) 

A mere error of state law is not a denial of due process, Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 

221–22 (2011) (citing Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 121 n.21 (1982)). And federal habeas 

is unavailable to correct errors of state law. Id. at 219 (citing Estelle v. Mcguire, 502 U.S.

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-00870-LAB-AGS Document 17 Filed 05/29/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv870-LAB (AGS)

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

62, 67 (1991)). Proffitt cites several federal cases he claims support his position that his 

claims are cognizable on federal habeas review, but all are inapposite to his situation.

The Court modifies the R&R to include this reasoning as well. So modified, the 

R&R is ADOPTED.

The petition is DENIED, and a certificate of appealability is also DENIED. See 

Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003).

DATED: May 25, 2018

____________________________________

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00870-LAB-AGS Document 17 Filed 05/29/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3