Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00032/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00032-1/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

07cv0032

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD VILLA,

Petitioner,

v.

M.S. EVANS, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.07cv0032 JAH (JMA)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO STAY [Doc. No. 8]

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion

to stay and the report and recommendation (“Report”) filed by the Honorable Jan M.

Adler, United States Judge, recommending the motion to stay be denied. After careful

consideration of the pleadings and relevant exhibits submitted by the parties, and for

the reasons set forth below, this Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s Report in its

entirety and DENIES the motion to stay.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted, on October 21, 2003, of one count of first degree

murder with personal use of a firearm and assault with a deadly weapon. Petition at 1. 

The jury also found the gang enhancements true. Id.; Court of Appeal Decision, Exh.

A at 2. The trial court imposed a term of 25 years to life for murder, 25 years to life

for personal discharge of a firearm causing death, a 4 year term for assault and a 5 year

Case 3:07-cv-00032-JAH-JMA Document 15 Filed 11/29/07 Page 1 of 4
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 07cv0032

gang enhancement. See Exh. A at 2. Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Court of

Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, State of California, asserting eleven grounds for

relief. See Exh. B. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction on May 4, 2005. 

Petitioner filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court asserting four

claims for relief. See Exh. C. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court on

January 3, 2007, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff alleges five

grounds for relief. In his fifth claim, Petitioner alleges he was denied the right to

confront and cross-examine witnesses and due process when the trial court allowed

hearsay testimony in violation of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. See

Petition at 10. He fails to allege he exhausted the fifth claim for relief. Judge Adler

granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and notified Petitioner of possible

dismissal of his petition for failure to exhaust a claim. See Doc. No. 3. Petitioner was

given four options to proceed with his petition. On April 18, 2007, Plaintiff filed the

pending motion to stay. See Doc. No. 8. Respondent filed an opposition on May 18,

2007. Petitioner did not file a reply. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Judge Adler

submitted a report and recommendation (“Report”) to this Court recommending

Petitioner’s motion to stay be denied.

Objections to the Report were due by August 31, 2007. Petitioner filed a

document entitled “Objections to the Report and Recommendations” on October 10,

2007. See Doc. No. 14. However, a review of the document demonstrates there are no

objections to the Report. Plaintiff specifically states he has “no objections to the

Court’s descision [sic] to deny [his] motion to request to ‘stay federal proceedings.” 

Doc. No. 14 at 1. He further states he will start over and refile a new petition for writ

of habeas corpus. Id. 

DISCUSSION

The district court’s role in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the district

Case 3:07-cv-00032-JAH-JMA Document 15 Filed 11/29/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3 07cv0032

court “shall 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].” Id. When no objections are

filed, the Court may assume the correctness of the magistrate judge’s findings of fact

and decide the motion on the applicable law. Campbell v. United States Dist. Court,

501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974); Johnson v. Nelson, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 1217

(S.D. Cal. 2001). Under such circumstances, the Ninth Circuit has held that “a failure

to file objections only relieves the trial court of its burden to give de novo review to

factual findings; conclusions of law must still be reviewed de novo.” Barilla v. Ervin, 886

F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708

F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)).

Although Petitioner filed a document entitled objections to the report and

recommendation, Petitioner does not object to the Report. Thus, the Court received

no objections or requests for extensions of time to file objections. As such, the Court

assumes the correctness of the magistrate judge’s factual findings and adopts them in

full. The Court has conducted a de novo review, independently reviewing the Report

and all relevant papers submitted by both parties, and finds that the Report provides a

cogent analysis of the issued presented in the motion. Specifically, this Court agrees

that Petitioner failed to show good cause for his failure to exhaust as required. See

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 275 (2005). In fact, Petitioner provides no

explanation for failing to exhaust his fifth claim. Therefore, this Court adopts the

magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions presented in the report.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge presented in the 

Report are ADOPTED in their entirety;

//

Case 3:07-cv-00032-JAH-JMA Document 15 Filed 11/29/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4 07cv0032

2. Petitioner’s motion to stay is DENIED.

DATED: November 29, 2007

HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00032-JAH-JMA Document 15 Filed 11/29/07 Page 4 of 4