Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01043/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01043-4/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 - 10cv1043

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY JOHN LITTLE, Jr.,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 08cv1043 JM(PCL)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION RE: DENIAL

OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS; DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

vs.

D.K. SISTO, Warden,

Respondent.

On August 25, 2011 Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis entered a Report and Recommendation

recommending the denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus on the merits. (“R & R”). The R

& R, expressly incorporated herein, thoroughly and thoughtfully analyzed Petitioner’s claims and

recommended that the petition be denied. Petitioner has filed objections to the R & R (“Objections”).

Respondent did not file a reply to the Objections. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), this matter is

appropriate for decision without oral argument. 

In his Objections, Petitioner sets forth essentially the same arguments raised in the Petition and

addressed in the R & R. In large part, Petitioner argues that there is sufficient evidence in the record

to support his argument that the presentation of PTSD and mental defense evidence “may have

affected Petitioner’s mental state, perception, and actions when he killed the victim.” (Objections at

p.9). The difficulty with this argument, as set forth in the R & R, is that Petitioner fails to show that

the “the state court unreasonably applied federal law in concluding it was not reasonably likely that

evidence of Little’s PTSD would have brought about a different result. Bell, 535 U.S. at 694.” (R &

Case 3:08-cv-01043-JM-PCL Document 59 Filed 12/05/11 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 - 10cv1043

R at p.12:6-8). Instead of responding to the same arguments a second time, the court adopts the R &

R in its entirety.

Lastly, upon review of the record, the court also concludes that Petitioner fails to make a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, any request for a certificate

of appealability is denied. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 5, 2011

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:08-cv-01043-JM-PCL Document 59 Filed 12/05/11 Page 2 of 2