Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02097/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02097-1/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

JORGE SALVADOR MORENO,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 13cv2097-WQH

(BLM)

vs. ORDER

BILL GORE, SAN DIEGO COUNTY

SHERIFF, et al.

Respondents.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation

(ECF No. 12) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Barbra L. Major,

recommending that this Court: (1) deny Petitioner Jorge Salvador Moreno’s

(“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1); and (2) deny

Petitioner’s pending motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3).

I. Background

On March 9, 2011, a jury convicted Petitioner of the crime of assault with force

likely to produce great bodily injury. (ECF No. 12 at 2). On July 18, 2011, the

Petitioner was sentenced to twenty-five years to life in prison. (ECF No. 1 at 1). 

On January 23, 2012, Petitioner appealed his conviction to the California Court

of Appeal, contending that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction,

and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial based on juror

misconduct. (ECF No. 1 at 6, 7). On June 26, 2012, the Court of Appeal issued an

unpublished opinion affirming Petitioner’s conviction. (ECF No. 12 at 3). Petitioner

- 1 - 13cv2097-WQH-PCL

Case 3:13-cv-02097-WQH-BLM Document 13 Filed 07/08/14 Page 1 of 5
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

subsequently filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court. Id. at 3. On

September 21, 2012, the California Supreme Court denied the petition without comment

or citation to authority. Id. The petitioner did not seek habeas corpus relief in state

court.

On September 6, 2013, Petitioner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a

Motion to Appoint Counsel in this Court. (ECF No. 1, 3). Petitioner alleged the

following grounds for relief: (1) Petitioner’s right to due process under the Fourteenth

Amendment was violated because there was insufficient evidence to support his

conviction of assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury; (2) Petitioner’s Sixth

Amendment right was violated because the trial court denied his motion for new trial

based on juror misconduct; and (3) Petitioners Sixth Amendment right was violated due

to ineffective assistance of counsel. (ECF No. 1). The Court informed Petitioner that

his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was unexhausted, and that his petition was

subject to dismissal. (ECF No. 5). On October 4, 2013, Petitioner withdrew his

unexhausted ineffective assistance of counsel claim. (ECF No. 6). On January 27,

2014, Respondent filed an answer to the Petition. (ECF No. 9). On February 5, 2014,

Petitioner filed a traverse. (ECF No. 11).

On March 4, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation,

recommending that the Petition be denied in its entirety, and that Petitioner’s Motion

to Appoint Counsel be denied. (ECF No. 12). As to the insufficient evidence claim,

the Magistrate Judge found that there was substantial evidence supporting the jury’s

verdict because evidence at trial showed that “the water temperature likely was ‘greater

than 150 degrees’ when it hit the victim’s face and that water at any temperature greater

than 130 degrees is capable of causing second degree burns and scalding . . .” Id. at 8. 

The Magistrate Judge concluded that “[t]he jury’s determination, therefore, was not

unreasonable and the state court’s analysis and decision denying the sufficiency of

evidence claim was not ‘contrary to or an unreasonable application of Federal law.” Id.

- 2 - 13cv2097-WQH-PCL

Case 3:13-cv-02097-WQH-BLM Document 13 Filed 07/08/14 Page 2 of 5
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

at 9. As to the juror misconduct claim, the Magistrate Judge found that “[b]ecause

Petitioner has not shown that Juror No. 3 answered any question dishonestly, the state

court’s decision was not contrary to, and did not involve an unreasonable application

of, clearly established federal law.” Id. at 11-12. The Magistrate Judge also found that

the declaration of Petitioner’s trial counsel, used to show Juror No. 3's misconduct

during deliberations, was inadmissible under California Evidence Code section 1150. 

Id. at 14. The Magistrate Judge concluded that “there is no legal support for

Petitioner’s argument that Juror No. 3's work experience and/or familiarity with the

prison system ‘must have tainted’ Petitioner’s right to a fair and impartial jury.” Id. at

14. 

The Magistrate Judge denied Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel due to

Petitioner’s ability to articulate the legal issues involved and his inability to demonstrate

a likelihood of success on the merits. Id. at 15. The Magistrate Judge found: “Under

such circumstances, a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a state

prisoner’s request for appointment of counsel as it is simply not warranted by the

interest of justice.” Id. at 15. 

The Magistrate Judge concluded:

IT IS ORDERED that no later than March 28, 2014, any party to this action may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to Report and Reccomendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than April 18, 2014. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections within the specified time may waive the right to

raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s order.” 

Id. at 16.

To date, neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

II. Discussion

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation

of a Magistrate Judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When a party objects to a report and recommendation, “[a] judge

- 3 - 13cv2097-WQH-PCL

Case 3:13-cv-02097-WQH-BLM Document 13 Filed 07/08/14 Page 3 of 5
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

of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

[Report and Recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

When no objections are filed, the district court need not review the report and

recommendation de novo. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir.

2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003). A district court

may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the Court has

reviewed the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court concludes that the

Magistrate Judge correctly found that petitioner’s first claim must be denied because

Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the state court’s adjudication was contrary to the

standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). 

The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly found Petitioner’s

second claim must be denied because Petitioner failed to establish that Juror No. 3

dishonestly answered a material question during voir dire. In addition, his trial

counsel’s declaration was inadmissible under Evidence Code section 1150. 

The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly found Petitioner’s

Motion to Appoint Counsel must also be denied because Petitioner failed to

demonstrate the “exceptional circumstances” necessary for the court to appoint counsel. 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). 

The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the

Petition and Motion to Appoint Counsel should be denied. The Court adopts the Report

and Recommendation in its entirety.

III. Certificate of Appealability

A certificate of appealability must be obtained by a petitioner in order to pursue

an appeal from a final order in a section 2254 habeas corpus proceeding. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A); Fed R. App. P. 22(b). Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases, “[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of

- 4 - 13cv2097-WQH-PCL

Case 3:13-cv-02097-WQH-BLM Document 13 Filed 07/08/14 Page 4 of 5
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

appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” 

A certificate of appealability should be issued only where the petition presents

“a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

It must appear that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the

petitioner’s constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000).

The Court concludes that jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether

this Court was correct in denying the Petition. The Court denies a certificate of

appealability.

IV. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 12)

is ADOPTED in its entirety. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. 

(ECF No. 1). The Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED. (ECF No. 3). A certificate

of appealability is DENIED. 

DATED: July 8, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 5 - 13cv2097-WQH-PCL

Case 3:13-cv-02097-WQH-BLM Document 13 Filed 07/08/14 Page 5 of 5