Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00480/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00480-1/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

KENYATTA QUINN MITCHELL,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 13cv480-WQH-DHB

ORDER

vs.

WARDEN PADRIX, et al.,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation

(ECF No. 27) issued by United States Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick,

recommending that this Court deny Petitioner Kenyatta Quinn Mitchell’s First

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 13).

I. Background

On January 27, 2011, a jury in San Diego County Superior Court found Petitioner

guilty of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger, in violation of California Penal Code §

12020(a)(4).1

 (Lodgment 1 at 1-2). Petitioner admitted a prior strike conviction, and

a prior prison term. (Lodgment 6 at 117-19). The state court sentenced Petitioner to

state prison for a term of five years. (Lodgment 1 at 119).

1

Petitioner was charged and convicted under the 2010 version of California Penal

Code § 12020. In 2012, § 12020 was renumbered with no substantive changes. Section 12020 (a)(4) is now § 21310. For purposes of this Order, the Court will refer to the

2010 version of the statute.

- 1 - 13cv480-WQH-DHB

Case 3:13-cv-00480-WQH-DHB Document 29 Filed 06/03/14 Page 1 of 4
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

On August 28, 2012, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in

part, and reversed in part. (Lodgment 10). After the opinion was filed, the Superior

Court informed the Court of Appeal that a portion of the transcript and the court’s

minutes from January 26, 2012 had been omitted from the initial appellate record. 

Based on the new information provided by the Superior Court, the Court of Appeal

granted rehearing, augmented the record, and gave the parties an opportunity to file

supplemental letter briefs. (Lodgment 12). On October 11, 2012, the California Court

of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial court. (Lodgment 15). On January 24,

2013, the California Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s petition for review without

comment. (Lodgment 17).

On February 27, 2013, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Southern

District of California. (ECF No. 1). On May 8, 2013, Petitioner filed his First

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 13). Petitioner alleges his

federal constitutional rights were violated on four grounds: (1) California Penal Code

§ 12020 violates the Second Amendment; (2) Petitioner’s sentence is cruel and unusual

in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (3) the jury was improperly instructed on the

elements of the offense; and (4) Petitioner was not properly informed about his rights

relating to his prior convictions. On July 11, 2013, Respondent filed an Answer. (ECF

No. 15). On August 26, 2013, Petitioner filed a Traverse. (ECF No. 24).

On February 3, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and

Recommendation, recommending that the Petition be denied in its entirety. (ECF No.

27). On March 8, 2013, Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

(ECF No. 28). The docket reflects that Respondent did not file a reply to Petitioner’s

objections.

II. 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

- 2 - 13cv480-WQH-DHB

Case 3:13-cv-00480-WQH-DHB Document 29 Filed 06/03/14 Page 2 of 4
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

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When a party objects to a report and recommendation, “[a] judge

of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report

and recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A district

court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court conducted

a de novo review of this case. After consideration of the entire file, including

Petitioner’s objections, the Court finds the February 3, 2014 Report and

Recommendation supported by the record and by proper analysis.2

 The Court finds that

Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254(d). The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the

First Amended Petition should be denied. The Court adopts the Report and

Recommendation in its entirety.

III. Certificate of Appealability

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, “[t]he

district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order

adverse to the applicant.” A certificate of appealability should be issued only where the

petition presents “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “[A] [certificate of appealability] should issue when the prisoner

shows ... that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid

claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court concludes

2

 On February 13, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded Peruta v. County of San Diego, 758 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (S.D. Cal. 2010), which is cited in the Report and Recommendation. See Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742

F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2014). The Ninth Circuit’s decision does not impact the findings by the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation.

- 3 - 13cv480-WQH-DHB

Case 3:13-cv-00480-WQH-DHB Document 29 Filed 06/03/14 Page 3 of 4
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 jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether this Court was correct in

denying the First Amended Petition. The Court denies a certificate of appealability.

IV. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED

in its entirety. (ECF No. 27). The First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

is DENIED. (ECF No. 13). A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk of the

Court shall close this case.

DATED: June 3, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 13cv480-WQH-DHB

Case 3:13-cv-00480-WQH-DHB Document 29 Filed 06/03/14 Page 4 of 4