Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01558/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01558-1/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

18-cv-1558-AJB-LL

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

Rosman Ortega,

Petitioner,

v.

Raymond Madden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18-cv-1558-AJB-LL

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 15), 

and

(2) REQUIRING A RESPONSE FROM 

PETITIONER.

Pro se Petitioner Rosman Ortega filed an amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging perceived errors during his state court criminal 

trial. (Doc. No. 4 at 5–6.) The Magistrate Judge found in a Report and Recommendation, 

(“R&R”), that two of the six grounds Petitioner raised were unexhausted as they were never 

presented to the California Supreme Court. (Doc. No. 15 at 5.) Based on this finding, the 

R&R concluded that Petitioner’s writ was a “mixed” petition of both exhausted and 

unexhausted claims. (Id. at 6.) As such, the R&R recommended three paths from which 

Petitioner must choose to move his case forward—or risk dismissal of his petition without

prejudice. (Id. at 6–8.) The R&R gave Petitioner until March 1, 2019, to object to the R&R. 

(Id.) Petitioner has not objected.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 

Case 3:18-cv-01558-AJB-LL Document 16 Filed 06/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18-cv-1558-AJB-LL

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

judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. 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)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 

874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), 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(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment; 

see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Reviewing the R&R’s analysis, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that 

Petitioner’s petition is mixed because it contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims. 

The Court also finds the three options presented by the Magistrate Judge are an accurate 

representation of Petitioner’s choices. In summary, those choices include: (1) voluntarily 

dismissing his petition, (2) abandoning his unexhausted claims, or (3) filing a motion to 

stay federal proceedings. Petitioner is encouraged to review the R&R, (Doc. No. 15), in its 

entirety for more details on those options. 

Finding the R&R contains no clear error and is well-reasoned, the Court adopts the 

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Petitioner has until July 12, 2019, to inform the Court 

of how he wishes to proceed. If Petitioner does not notify the Court within that time frame, 

his habeas petition will be dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01558-AJB-LL Document 16 Filed 06/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2