Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01700/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01700-1/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

- 1 - 09cv1700

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAYTON TREVOR MACK,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 09-CV-1700 JLS (AJB)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION, (2)

DISMISSING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND

(3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

(Doc. No. 19)

vs.

ROBERT HERNANDEZ,

Respondent.

Presently before the Court is Clayton Trevor Mack’s (Petitioner) petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and Magistrate Judge Anthony J. Battaglia’s Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) advising this Court to dismiss the petition. (Doc. Nos. 1 & 19.)

Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth the

duties of a district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. “The

district 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.” 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(c); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614,

617 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980). However, in the absence of

timely objection, the Court need “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the

record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court,

501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

Case 3:09-cv-01700-JLS-AJB Document 20 Filed 06/16/10 Page 1 of 2
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 - 09cv1700

In this case, Petitioner has not timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Battaglia’s R&R.

Thus, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error. Finding none, and noting that Judge Battaglia’s

Order is thorough, well reasoned, and no contains no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in full

and DISMISSES the petition as barred by the statute of limitations.

Finally, this Court is under an obligation to determine whether a certificate of appealability

should issue in this matter. A certificate of appealability is authorized “if the applicant has made a

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

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's

resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate

to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); see

also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Court must either (1) grant the certificate of

appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or (2) state why a certificate should

not issue. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

The certificate of appealability is DENIED. The petition here raises four claims: (1) denial

of Petitioner’s request to replace his retained counsel with another attorney in violation of the Sixth

Amendment, (Petition at 10) (2) denial of his right to represent himself in violation of Petitioner’s

right to due process, (Petition at 11) (3) denial of due process based on his trial being fundamentally

unfair as a result of claims 1 and 2, (Petition at 12) and (4) denial of his Sixth Amendment rights based

on judicial fact-finding. (Petition at 13–14.) In reviewing these questions the Court must conclude

that reasonable jurists would agree that the California Court of Appeal’s denial of Petitioner’s claim

was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Accordingly, no certificate of appealability should issue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 16, 2010

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01700-JLS-AJB Document 20 Filed 06/16/10 Page 2 of 2