Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00715/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00715-1/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- 14cv715-MMA (JLB)

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 

DWAYNE STANLEY IVEY, II,

Petitioner,

v. 

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, 

Respondent.

Case No.: 14cv715-MMA (JLB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED 

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; 

[Doc. No. 17] 

OVERRULING PETITIONER’S 

OBJECTIONS; 

[Doc. No. 21] 

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT 

OF HABEAS CORPUS; 

[Doc. No. 1] 

DENYING REQUEST FOR 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING; 

[Doc. No. 1] 

DECLINING TO ISSUE 

CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY 

Petitioner Dwayne Stanley Ivey, II (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro 

se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (“petition”) pursuant to Title 28 of the United 

States Code, section 2254, challenging the constitutionality of his conviction at trial for 

committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of fourteen (Cal. Penal Code § 288(a)); 

Case 3:14-cv-00715-MMA-JLB Document 22 Filed 12/16/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
 -2- 14cv715-MMA (JLB)

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

sexual intercourse with a child ten years of age or younger (Cal. Penal Code § 288.7(a)); 

sodomy with a child ten years of age or younger (Cal. Penal Code § 288.7(a)); digital 

penetration of a child ten years of age or younger (Cal. Penal Code § 288.7(b)); oral 

copulation with a child ten years of age or younger (Cal. Penal Code § 288.7(b)); and 

found true the allegation that Petitioner engaged in substantial sexual conduct with a 

child under the age of fourteen (Cal. Penal Code §1203.066(a)(9)). See Doc. No. 1. 

Petitioner asserts he was denied his fundamental right to a fair trial due to a combination 

of prosecutorial misconduct and the admission of irrelevant and highly prejudicial 

evidence. See id. at 3-8. Respondent answered on the merits, requesting the petition be 

denied with prejudice, and that no certificate of appealability be issued. See Doc. No. 6. 

Petitioner filed a traverse. See Doc. No. 12. 

The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Burkhardt for 

preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and 

Civil Local Rule HC.2. Judge Burkhardt has issued a detailed and well-reasoned report 

recommending that the Court deny Petitioner’s claims for relief without an evidentiary 

hearing and dismiss the petition. See Doc. No. 17. Petitioner filed a motion for extension 

of time to file his objections to the Report and Recommendation. See Doc. No. 19. The 

Court granted Petitioner’s motion (Doc. No. 20), and Petitioner filed objections to the 

Report and Recommendation on August 17, 2016. See Doc. No. 21. For the reasons set 

forth below, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections and ADOPTS the Report 

and Recommendation in its entirety. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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

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). 

/ / / 

Case 3:14-cv-00715-MMA-JLB Document 22 Filed 12/16/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
 -3- 14cv715-MMA (JLB)

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

DISCUSSION

Petitioner objects to Judge Burkhardt’s Report and Recommendation on various 

grounds. See Doc. No. 21. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the pertinent 

portions of the record with respect to each of Petitioner’s objections, and each objection 

is addressed in turn. 

First, Petitioner objects to the legal standard applied in the portion of the Report 

and Recommendation entitled “IV. Scope of Review,” on the ground that the applicable 

provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) are 

“in part unconstitutional and illegal, and denies Petitioner due process and equal 

protection of the law.” Doc. No. 21 at 2. The provisions of AEDPA govern federal 

habeas corpus petitions. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997). The Supreme 

Court has consistently upheld the constitutionality of AEDPA and has stated, “[s]ection 

2254(d) [as amended by AEDPA] reflects the view that habeas corpus is a ‘guard against 

extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems,’ not a substitute for ordinary 

error correction through appeal.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102-03 (2011), 

quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 332 n.5 (1979). Judge Burkhardt clearly 

defined the applicable legal standard a federal court utilizes in determining whether to 

grant a habeas corpus petition. Thus, the Court finds Petitioner’s objection to be without 

merit. 

Second, Petitioner contends he has met the appropriate standard to prevail on his 

claims of prosecutorial misconduct, and admission of highly prejudicial evidence. See 

Doc. No. 21 at 4. Petitioner’s objections do not present new argument and repeat the 

arguments found in the petition. Judge Burkhardt thoroughly addresses these arguments 

in the Report in Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court finds Petitioner’s 

prosecutorial misconduct and admission of prejudicial evidence objections are without 

merit. 

Third, Petitioner objects to Judge Burkhardt’s denial of Petitioner’s request for 

appointment of counsel. Doc. No. 21 at 5. Judge Burkhardt twice considered Petitioner’s 

Case 3:14-cv-00715-MMA-JLB Document 22 Filed 12/16/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
 -4- 14cv715-MMA (JLB)

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

motions requesting appointment of counsel, and found in both instances that Petitioner 

failed to demonstrate that the interests of justice are best served by appointment of 

counsel. See Doc. Nos. 10, 16. The Court finds Judge Burkhardt came to a sound 

conclusion, and thus finds Petitioner’s objection without merit. 

Finally, Petitioner claims he had insufficient time to respond to the Report and 

Recommendation, and requests an additional “sixty (60) days with which to fully and 

adequately file Petitioner’s objection(s).” Doc. No. 21 at 6. All written objections to the 

Report and Recommendation were due on or before July 21, 2016. Doc. No. 17 at 38. 

On July 25, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion with the Court requesting an extension of time 

to respond to the Report and Recommendation. Doc. No. 19. The Court granted the 

motion, and extended the deadline four weeks to August 18, 2016. Doc. No. 20. 

Petitioner filed his objections on August 17, 2016. Doc. No. 21. Because the Court 

previously granted Petitioner an extension of time to respond, coupled with the fact that 

Petitioner filed his objections in a timely fashion, the Court finds Petitioner’s argument 

meritless. 

Accordingly, 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 are 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 

Case 3:14-cv-00715-MMA-JLB Document 22 Filed 12/16/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
 -5- 14cv715-MMA (JLB)

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

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. 

CONCLUSION

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

Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

and request for evidentiary hearing are 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: December 15, 2016

 _____________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-00715-MMA-JLB Document 22 Filed 12/16/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5