Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01747/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01747-2/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

 Secretary Cate, the present Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, is automatically substituted into this action in places of former Secretary James Tilton.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d)(1). 

- 1 - 06cv1747

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRADY HARRIS,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06CV1747 JLS (JMA)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION, (2)

DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR STAY AS MOOT,

and (3) GRANTING LEAVE TO

FILE AN AMENDED PETITION

(Doc. Nos. 13, 16, & 19)

vs.

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary,1

Respondent.

On August 28, 2006, Grady Harris (“petitioner”), at the time proceeding pro se, filed a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 setting forth five claims for

relief.

On March 14, 2007, Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler issued a report and recommendation

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and FRCP 72(b). (Doc. No. 19.) Magistrate Judge Adler

recommended that this Court deny as moot plaintiff’s motion to stay the petition because petitioner

had already accomplished the purpose of the stay, i.e., the exhaustion of state remedies as to a

sixth claim concerning petitioner’s entitlement to re-sentencing. Magistrate Judge Adler further

recommended that this Court grant plaintiff leave to file an amended petition including the newly

Case 3:06-cv-01747-JLS-JMA Document 49 Filed 08/11/08 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

 This Court’s decision on the report and recommendation was necessarily delayed by

petitioner’s application for a guardian ad litem in his February 22, 2007 reply in support of the motion

to stay, and motion for appointment of counsel filed on April 18, 2007. Magistrate Judge Adler

conducted extensive competency proceedings, which resulted in a May 22, 2008 Order finding that

the interests of justice required the appointment of counsel and appointing attorney Kurt D.

Hermansen to represent petitioner in these proceedings. (Doc. No. 44.) On May 27, 2008, Magistrate

Judge Adler set a briefing schedule for the filing of the first amended petition. (Doc. No. 45.) 

At the time that Magistrate Judge Adler issued the report and recommendation, the case was

assigned to the Hon. Dana M. Sabraw. On September 26, 2007, the case was reassigned to the Hon.

Janis L. Sammartino. Magistrate Judge Adler remained assigned to the case. 

- 2 - 06cv1747

exhausted claim. The parties were ordered to file written objections by April 16, 2007, but no

objections were ever filed.2

 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, a district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is

made.” “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear

error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72,

Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th

Cir. 1974)). 

Having reviewed the report and recommendation in the absence of any timely objection,

the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Adler did not commit clear error in his well-reasoned

analysis. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS IN FULL the report and recommendation. The Court

DENIES AS MOOT petitioner’s motion to stay the petition and GRANTS petitioner leave to file

an amended petition to include the sixth, now-exhausted claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 11, 2008

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01747-JLS-JMA Document 49 Filed 08/11/08 Page 2 of 2