Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01891/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01891-1/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

LOUIS CHARLES ARBEE II,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 12cv1891-MMA (BGS)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

[Doc. No. 11]

OVERRULING PETITIONER’S

OBJECTIONS;

[Doc. No. 12]

GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST

AMENDED PETITION

[Doc. No. 7]

DECLINING TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

vs.

ALAN HERNANDEZ, Chief Deputy

Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner Louis Charles Arbee II filed a first amended petition for writ of

habeas corpus (“petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the California

Department of Corrections’ March 8, 2011 decision finding him guilty of a rules

violation for violating Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations, section

3005(d)(1), battery with a weapon or physical force causing mortal or serious injury

or rape. See Doc. No. 5. Respondent moves to dismiss the petition, arguing that

Petitioner’s challenge to the disciplinary action has been procedurally defaulted. See

- 1 - 12cv1891

Case 3:12-cv-01891-MMA-BGS Document 14 Filed 04/04/13 Page 1 of 3
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

Doc. No. 7. Petitioner filed a response to the motion. See Doc. No. 9. The matter

was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal for preparation of

a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Civil Local

Rule HC.2. Judge Skomal issued a well-reasoned and thorough Report

recommending that the petition be dismissed. See Doc. No. 11. Petitioner filed

objections to the Report and Recommendation, to which Respondent replied. See

Doc. Nos. 12, 13. 

Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), the Court 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). Due to the general nature of Petitioner’s objections, the Court conducted a de

novo review of the entire record. The Court finds the objections to be without merit. 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Judge Skomal issued an accurate report

and well-reasoned recommendation that Respondent’s motion be granted and the

instant petition be dismissed. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation

in its entirety, GRANTS Respondent’s motion to dismiss, and DISMISSES

Petitioner’s first amended petition with prejudice.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

 Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that “the

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

order adverse to the applicant.” A certificate of appealability is not issued unless

there is “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(2). Under this standard, a petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could

debate whether the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that

the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003), quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529

- 2 - 12cv1891

Case 3:12-cv-01891-MMA-BGS Document 14 Filed 04/04/13 Page 2 of 3
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. 473, 484 (2000). For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation

and incorporated by reference herein, the Court finds that this standard has not been

met and therefore DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability in this case.

The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 4, 2013

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cv1891

Case 3:12-cv-01891-MMA-BGS Document 14 Filed 04/04/13 Page 3 of 3