Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00869/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00869-1/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

DAVID PHOMMACHANH,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 13CV869-MMA (MDD)

ORDER OVERRULING

PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS;

[Doc. No. 44]

ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF

UNITED STATES

MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

[Doc. No. 32]

DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS;

[Doc. No. 1]

DECLINING TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

vs.

WARDEN F. FOULK,

Respondent.

Petitioner David Phommachanh, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

Section 2254, challenging the constitutionality of his conviction at trial for murder,

attempted murder, and assault with a semiautomatic firearm, as well as corresponding

//

//

- 1 - 13cv869

Case 3:13-cv-00869-MMA-MDD Document 47 Filed 09/22/14 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

gang and use of firearm enhancements.1 [Doc. No. 1.] Respondent answered on the

merits, requesting the Petition be denied with prejudice, and that no certificate of

appealability be issued. [Doc. No. 9.] Petitioner filed a traverse. [Doc. No. 29.] 

The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin

for preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b),

and Civil Local Rule HC.2. Judge Dembin issued a report recommending the Court

deny Petitioner’s claims for relief without an evidentiary hearing. [See Doc. No. 32.] 

Petitioner filed a Supplemental Document to Amend Initial Filing (“Supplemental

Filing”)2

 [Doc. No. 43], and Objections to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation

(“Objections”) [Doc. No. 44]. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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

Section 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). 

DISCUSSION

The Supplemental Document Petitioner filed contains portions of Petitioner’s

original Petition and traverse, along with additional argument regarding Petitioner’s

claims. [Doc. No. 43.] In Petitioner’s Objections, he states “Petitioner has filed a

Supplemental to Amend Initial Filing to include the ‘Equal Protection’ challenge to

ground one. Therefore, this ground is exhausted.” [Doc. No. 44, p. 2.] The Report

and Recommendation issued by Judge Dembin correctly notes Petitioner’s traverse

1

 Petitioner raised five grounds for relief in his petition, including an unexhausted claim which

Petitioner moved to dismiss. The Court granted Petitioner’s motion. [Doc. No. 16.] 

2

 Petitioner also filed an Amended Supplemental Document [Doc. No. 46] that is identical to

the Supplemental Document, but includes a page with Petitioner’s signature and the date and time the

Supplemental Document was filed. 

- 2 - 13cv869

Case 3:13-cv-00869-MMA-MDD Document 47 Filed 09/22/14 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

was not the proper avenue to raise additional grounds for relief, and that the Equal

Protection claim has not yet been exhausted in state court. Even if it had, the Report

and Recommendation concludes Petitioner would not have standing to bring such a

claim, as the alleged government discrimination at issue was not committed against

Petitioner. [See Doc. No. 32, p. 14-15.] 

Having considered Petitioner’s objections in the Supplemental Document

[Doc. No. 43] and in the Objections to Magistrates Report and Recommendation

[Doc. No. 44], and having conducted a de novo review of the pertinent portions of

the record, the Court concludes that Judge Dembin issued an accurate report and

well-reasoned recommendation that the Petition be denied. Therefore, Petitioner’s

objections are OVERRULED, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in

its entirety, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and request for evidentiary

hearing is DENIED.

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

U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds

this standard has not been met. Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to issue a

certificate of appealability as to any claims or issues raised in the Petition.

//

//

- 3 - 13cv869

Case 3:13-cv-00869-MMA-MDD Document 47 Filed 09/22/14 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

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED, the

Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety, Petitioner’s Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED, and the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate

of appealability.

The Clerk of Court shall terminate this case and enter judgment in favor of

Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 22, 2014

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 4 - 13cv869

Case 3:13-cv-00869-MMA-MDD Document 47 Filed 09/22/14 Page 4 of 4