Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01361/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01361-8/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 - 06cv1361

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM J. BAUMER,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06 CV 1361 JM (CAB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT &

RECOMMENDATION, DENYING

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. Nos. 37, 41)

vs.

JAMES TILTON, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a first amended § 2254 habeas petition on November 8,

2007. He challenges his conviction for possession and manufacture of a deadly weapon by a prisoner

and for two counts of battery upon a state correctional officer. Petitioner claims (1) the state trial court

violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights when it ordered him to wear

restraints during trial; and (2) the state trial court violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights

when it denied his request to represent himself at trial under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806

(1975). Petitioner also requests the court to hold an evidentiary hearing on his Faretta claim. 

Pending before the court is Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo’s Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the court deny both the petition and request for an

evidentiary hearing. Petitioner filed objections to which Respondent filed no reply. Also pending is

Petitioner’s motion to reconsider the court’s September 28, 2007 Order denying Petitioner leave to

amend his § 2254 petition and add his proposed ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. For the

reasons set forth below, the court hereby ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety and DENIES both the §

Case 3:06-cv-01361-JM-CAB Document 44 Filed 07/07/08 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

- 2 - 06cv1361

2254 petition and the request for an evidentiary hearing. The court also DENIES the motion for

reconsideration.

I. BACKGROUND

The court hereby incorporates by reference the R&R’s Factual and Procedural Background

section.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Report and Recommendation

The district court reviews a magistrate judge’s R&R according to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure Rule 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636. The district court “shall make a de novo determination

of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made. A judge of the court 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); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–74 (1980). Petitioner raises no new

objections. Having carefully considered the thorough and thoughtful R&R, the record before the

court, Petitioner’s objections to the R&R, and the applicable authorities, the court hereby ADOPTS

the R&R in its entirety. Accordingly, the court DENIES the § 2254 petition and the request for an

evidentiary hearing. 

B. Motion for Reconsideration

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) states that a prejudgment order that adjudicates fewer

than all the parties’ claims is “subject to revision at any time before the entry of [final] judgment.”

See Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corr., 869 F.2d 461, 465 (9th Cir. 1989). Absent highly unusual

circumstances, however, a motion for reconsideration should not be granted unless (1) there is newly

discovered evidence; (2) the district court committed clear error; or (3) there is an intervening change

in the controlling law. Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)

(citing 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)).

Petitioner claims that the court erred in determining that his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel

claim lacked merit. Petitioner continues to argue that trial counsel should have brought a motion to

strike his prior convictions and that counsel’s failure to do so constitutes ineffective assistance. (Mem.

of P. & A. at 17.) Petitioner further argues that contrary to the court’s finding, California Penal Code

§ 1004 does not provide an independent state ground preventing federal review of the state court’s

Case 3:06-cv-01361-JM-CAB Document 44 Filed 07/07/08 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

- 3 - 06cv1361

denial of Petitioner’s proposed new claim. (Id. at 6.) Petitioner asserts that § 1004 pertains to

demurrers; but that a demurrer is not filed to challenge the constitutionality of a prior conviction

alleged in a California criminal prosecution. Rather, he argues, the generally accepted way to

challenge the constitutionality of a prior conviction is with a motion to strike. (Id. at 7–8 (citing

People v. Coffey, 430 P.2d 15 (Cal. 1967); (People v. Sumstine, 687 P.2d 904 (Cal. 1984)).) 

Having reviewed Petitioner’s arguments, the court finds that Petitioner has not demonstrated

that relief is warranted. Petitioner continues to make the same argument he made in his objections to

the earlier R&R; the court, however, rejected his objections. (See Obj. at 7–8.) Furthermore,

Petitioner offers no new evidence of counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance. As the court noted in

its previous order, Petitioner failed to present a claim of deficient performance rising to the level

required by Strickland. See Strickland v. Washington, 477 U.S. 668, 685–86 (1994). Petitioner’s

argument targets a strategic move: counsel’s decision not to raise an issue. Counsel’s conduct,

however, fell “within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance” and, therefore, was not

deficient. See Payton v. Woodford, 258 F.3d 905, 919 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 981

(2003). In sum, Petitioner offers no newly discovered evidence, and fails to demonstrate that the court

committed clear error or that there is an intervening change in the controlling law. Kona Enterprises,

Inc., 229 F.3d at 890. The court, therefore, DENIES Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the

September 28, 2007 Order.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court hereby ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety, DENIES the §

2254 petition, DENIES the request for an evidentiary hearing, and DENIES the motion for

reconsideration. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 7, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:06-cv-01361-JM-CAB Document 44 Filed 07/07/08 Page 3 of 3