Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01741/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01741-0/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

BRAE HANSEN,

Petitioner,

v.

D.K. JOHNSON, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 12cv1741 AJB (DHB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

DENYING PETITION FOR

HABEAS CORPUS WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND

(Doc. Nos. 1, 13)

On July 12, 2012, Brae Hansen (“Petitioner” or “Hansen”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) The Petition seeks relief from

Hansen’s April 2009 conviction in San Diego Superior Court, Case No. SCD207862,

following a jury trial in which Hansen was found guilty of first degree murder and

sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.1

 Respondent filed an Answer

on March 18, 2013, (Doc. No. 8), and Petitioner filed a Traverse on June 19, 2013, (Doc.

No. 12). 

The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick, who issued a

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). The R&R concluded that the Petition should be

denied, but that Hansen should be granted leave to amend as to ground two.2

 The parties

were instructed to file written objections to the R&R no later than March 17, 2014, and

1

 The jury also found Hansen had been vicariously armed and that she had committed the murder by means of “lying-n-wait.” (Doc. No. 1-2 at 1.)

2

 Ground One: Voluntariness of Post-Miranda confession (relating to denied motion to suppress); Ground Two: Joinder in Beneficial Arguments. 

1 12cv1741 AJB (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-01741-AJB-DHB Document 14 Filed 04/08/14 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

replies to the objections no later than March 31, 2014. (Doc. No. 13 at 28:20-29:5.) The

parties were further informed that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to raise those objections on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449,

455 (9th Cir. 1998). 

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

judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 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

finding 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 timely 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 Notes (1983); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, neither party filed timely objections to the R&R,

and the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly,

the Court: (1) ADOPTS the R&R, (Doc. No. 13); and (2) DENIES the Petition with leave

to amend as to Count Two, (Doc. No.1). Petitioner must file an amended Petition solely

as to Count Two no later than May 5, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 7, 2014

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

2 12cv1741 AJB (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-01741-AJB-DHB Document 14 Filed 04/08/14 Page 2 of 2