Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01288/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01288-1/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

16-CV-1288-AJB-DHB 

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

LEON JACKSON,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN ROBERT FOX, KAMALA 

HARRIS, 

Respondents.

Case No.: 16-CV-1288-AJB-DHB

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION, (Doc. No. 12);

(2) GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS, (Doc. No. 9);

(3) DISMISSING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS COPRUS, (Doc. 

No. 1); AND

(4) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

On May 27, 2016, Petitioner Leon Jackson (“Petitioner”), 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 Petitioner’s 2012

conviction in San Diego Superior Court, Case No. SCE320691, following a jury trial in 

which Petitioner was found guilty of robbery and was subsequently sentenced to a prison 

Case 3:16-cv-01288-AJB-DHB Document 13 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16-CV-1288-AJB-DHB 

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

term of nine years. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on September 12, 2016, (Doc. 

No. 9), which Petitioner opposed on October 17, 2016, (Doc. No. 11).

The Court referred the matter to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a report and 

recommendation (“R & R”). (Doc. No. 12.) The R & R concluded that Respondent’s 

motion should be granted. (Id. at 8.) The parties were instructed to file written objections 

to the R & R no later than January 6, 2017. (Id.)

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 

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); 

see United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617–18 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the 

absence of timely objections, 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’s note (1983); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 

otherwise.” (emphasis in original)). Here, neither party filed timely objections to the R & 

R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no 

clear error. Accordingly, the Court: (1) ADOPTS the R & R, (Doc. No. 12); (2) GRANTS

Respondent’s motion to dismiss, (Doc. No. 9); and (3) DISMISSES the Petition WITH 

PREJUDICE, (Doc. No. 1). 

When a district court enters a final order adverse to the applicant in a habeas corpus 

proceeding, it must either issue or deny a certificate of appealability, which is required to 

appeal a final order in a habeas corpus proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate 

of appealability is appropriate only where the petitioner makes “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c)(2)). Under this standard, the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists 

Case 3:16-cv-01288-AJB-DHB Document 13 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16-CV-1288-AJB-DHB 

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

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. Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000). Here, the Court finds that reasonable jurists could 

not debate the Court’s conclusion to dismiss with prejudice Petitioner’s claims and 

therefore DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01288-AJB-DHB Document 13 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3