Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01211/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01211-1/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 

16cv1211 CAB (WVG) 

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

ANDRES HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner,

v. 

SCOTT KERNAN, Secretary, et al., 

Respondents.

Case No.: 16cv1211 CAB (WVG)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 25]; 

REJECTING OBJECTIONS [Doc. 

No. 26]; DENYING PETITION [Doc.

No. 9]; and DENYING A 

CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY 

Andres Camarena Hernandez (“Petitioner”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se

with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. [Doc. No. 1.] This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge 

William V. Gallo pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Gallo issued a 

Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending the Court deny the petition. 

[Doc. No. 25.] Petitioner filed objections to the Report. [Doc. No. 26.]1

1 On August 30, 2017, Petitioner again filed objections to the Report. [Doc. No. 28.] However, Doc. 

No. 28 appears to be a duplicate of Doc. No. 26, with a slight change in the proof of service. 

Case 3:16-cv-01211-CAB-WVG Document 29 Filed 09/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
2

16cv1211 CAB (WVG)

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

Following de novo review of Petitioner’s claims, the Court finds the Report to be 

thorough, complete, and an accurate analysis of the legal issues presented in the petition. 

For the reasons explained below, the Court: (1) adopts the Report in full; (2) rejects 

Petitioner’s objections; (3) denies the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and (4) denies 

a certificate of appealability.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background

The Report contains an accurate recital of the facts as determined by the California 

Court of Appeal, and the Court fully adopts the Report’s statement of facts. As Judge

Gallo correctly noted, the Court presumes state court findings of fact to be correct.

II. State Procedural Background

The Report contains a complete and accurate summary of the state court 

proceedings, and the Court fully adopts the Report’s statement of state procedural 

background.

III. Federal Procedural Background

On May 18, 2016, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. [Doc. No. 1.] The Court dismissed the action without prejudice, 

allowing Petitioner until July 18, 2016 to satisfy the filing fee requirement and file a First 

Amended Petition. [See Doc. No. 5 at 3.] On May 25, 2016, Petitioner paid the filing fee. 

[Doc. No. 6.] On July 19, 2016, Petitioner filed another petition. [See Doc. No. 9.] The 

Court construed this as a motion to reopen the case and a motion to amend. [See Doc. No. 

11.] On July 26, 2016, the Court granted the motions and deemed the First Amended 

Petition filed as of July 13, 2016, the date in which Petitioner signed the Petition. [See 

Doc. No. 11.] On April 12, 2017, Respondent timely filed an Answer to the Petition and 

lodged numerous state court records. [Doc. No. 20.] On May 11, 2017, Petitioner timely 

filed a Traverse. [Doc. No. 24.] 

On July 28, 2017, Magistrate Judge Gallo issued the Report recommending that the 

petition be denied. [Doc. No. 25.] On August 25, 2017, Petitioner filed Objections to the 

Case 3:16-cv-01211-CAB-WVG Document 29 Filed 09/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
3

16cv1211 CAB (WVG)

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

Report. [Doc. No. 26.] In his objections, Petitioner argues that the magistrate judge erred

in finding that the state court did not make an unreasonable application of clearly 

established federal law or an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the 

evidence. Petitioner also requests an evidentiary hearing. Because Petitioner has 

objected to the Report in its entirety, the Court reviews the Report de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(C); Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009, 1022 (9th Cir. 2004).

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

The Report sets forth the correct standard of review for a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d):

(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in 

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with 

respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court 

proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim-

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable 

application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the 

Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of 

the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 403, 412-13 (2000). 

Under § 2254(d)(1), a state court's decision is “contrary to” clearly established 

federal law if the state court (1) “arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by this 

Court on a question of law” or (2) “confronts facts that are materially indistinguishable 

from a relevant Supreme Court precedent and arrives at a result opposite to ours.” 

Williams, 529 U.S. at 405. A state court's decision is an “unreasonable application” if the 

application was “objectively unreasonable.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75-76 

(2003).

Under § 2254(d)(2), habeas relief is not available due to a state court's 

“unreasonable determination of the facts” unless the underlying factual determinations 

were objectively unreasonable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 (2003); see 

also Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 341-42 (2006) (the fact that “[r]easonable minds 

Case 3:16-cv-01211-CAB-WVG Document 29 Filed 09/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
4

16cv1211 CAB (WVG)

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

reviewing the record might disagree” does not render a decision objectively 

unreasonable).

II. Petitioner's Request for an Evidentiary Hearing

In his Traverse, Petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing. [Doc. No. 24 at 6.] 

Section 2254(e) “substantially restricts the district court's discretion to grant an 

evidentiary hearing.” Baja v. Ducharme, 187 F.3d 1075, 1077 (9th Cir.1999). Section 

2254(e)(2) provides:

If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State 

court proceedings, the court shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the 

claim unless the applicant shows that-

(A) the claim relies on-

(i) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral 

review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or

(ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered 

through the exercise of due diligence; and

(B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear 

and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable 

factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). 

For the reasons discussed by the Magistrate Judge, there is a sufficient factual basis 

in the record to resolve Petitioner’s claims. See Insyxiengmay v. Morgan, 403 F.3d 657, 

669-670 (9th Cir. 2005). Therefore Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing is 

DENIED.

III. Analysis of Petitioner’s Claims

Petitioner raises three claims that include four separate grounds for relief in his 

Petition: (1) the State suppressed evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 

83, 95 (1963); (2) the State violated the federal constitution by not producing the crime 

weapon; (3) the State violated the federal constitution by not conducting DNA or 

fingerprint analysis; and (4) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

Case 3:16-cv-01211-CAB-WVG Document 29 Filed 09/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
5

16cv1211 CAB (WVG)

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

A. Claim One: Suppression of Evidence.

Petitioner contends the State violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by 

suppressing evidence because he was unable to locate certain police reports in the 

discovery materials, and those reports showed that one of the witnesses, Officer Glover, 

knew Petitioner from prior incidents. As noted by the Magistrate Judge, the record 

indicates that Petitioner did receive the reports at issue. [Doc. No. 25 at 7-8.] In his 

objections, Petitioner argues that just because the police reports were “offered” does not 

relinquish the State’s obligation to turn them over. [Doc. No. 26 at 4.] However the 

record indicates the police reports were turned over to the defense, as the trial judge 

discusses them when he ruled on the admissibility of Petitioner’s prior incidents. [Doc. 

No. 21-4 at 7.] Thus, if the defense did not have them, they certainly could have 

requested them. Finally, as noted by the Magistrate Judge, Petitioner has provided no 

evidence—such as a declaration from defense counsel—that the reports were not 

provided. Accordingly, this claim for relief is DENIED.

B. Failure to Produce and Test the Weapon.

Petitioner claims his right to due process was violated because the prosecution (1) did 

not produce the actual weapon (a crutch) used in the crime, but instead relied on a 

demonstrative replica; and (2) did not conduct DNA or fingerprint analysis. [Doc. No. 9 

at 17-18.] As noted by the Magistrate Judge, Petitioner has failed to show sheriff 

deputies acted in bad faith by not collecting and preserving the weapon. [Doc. No. 25 at 

11.] In his objections, Petitioner opines that the “Prints DNA would have been 

exonerating in nature.” [Doc. No. 26 at 10.] However, as noted by the Magistrate Judge, 

the sheriff deputies could have reasonably concluded the weapon had no exculpatory 

value given the multiple and consistent eye-witness statements provided by five different 

witnesses to the event. [Doc. No. 25 at 10-11.] Finally, the sheriff deputies had no 

constitutional obligation to conduct DNA testing. Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 

59 (1988). Accordingly, this claim for relief is DENIED.

/ / / / / 

Case 3:16-cv-01211-CAB-WVG Document 29 Filed 09/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
6

16cv1211 CAB (WVG)

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

C. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.

Petitioner argues he was denied effective assistance of counsel for four reasons: (1) 

his attorney failed to assert a claim for prosecutorial misconduct when the State did not 

conduct DNA testing; (2) his attorney failed to object to the submission of “foreign 

material as evidence” when the State used an exemplar crutch rather than the actual 

weapon.; (3) his attorney failed to go into sufficient depth when cross-examining Deputy 

Glover as to how the deputy knew Petitioner; and (4) his attorney failed to notice the 

State introduced evidence that had not been exchanged during discovery [Doc. No. 9 at 

15, 19.] 

1. Failure to assert prosecutorial misconduct.

As noted above, there is no constitutional requirement to conduct DNA testing. 

Thus, a failure to assert prosecutorial misconduct on this basis does not constitute 

ineffective assistance. Boag v. Raines, 769 F.2d 1341, 1344 (9th Cir. 1985). Moreover, 

regardless of who else may have touched the crutch, there are numerous witnesses who 

saw Petitioner grab the crutch and strike his brother during the altercation. Thus, 

Petitioner has not shown prejudice. Stickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 700 (1984).

Accordingly, this claim for relief is DENIED.

2. Failure to object to demonstrative crutch.

As noted by the Magistrate Judge, there is no indication Petitioner’s failure to 

object to the demonstrative crutch was objectively unreasonable, as counsel has “wide 

latitude in making tactical decisions.” [Doc. No. 25 at 15, quoting Stickland, 466 U.S. at 

689.] Moreover, the record is clear that the jury was informed on several different 

occasions that the crutch was a demonstrative aid, not the actual weapon. Thus, 

Petitioner has not shown prejudice. Stickland, 466 U.S. at 700. Accordingly, this claim 

for relief is DENIED. 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

Case 3:16-cv-01211-CAB-WVG Document 29 Filed 09/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
7

16cv1211 CAB (WVG)

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

3. Failure to go into depth of Deputy Glover’s knowledge of Petitioner.

As noted by the Magistrate Judge, the depth and breadth of cross-examination done 

by counsel is a tactical decision for which counsel has wide latitude. [Doc. No. 25 at 17, 

citing Stickland, 466 U.S. at 689.] Petitioner provides no evidence as to why counsel was 

deficient in the cross-examination of Officer Glover. Accordingly, this claim for relief is 

DENIED. 

4. Failure to identify evidence not exchanged during discovery.

As discussed above, the record shows that Petitioner’s counsel was provided with 

the police reports from the prior incidents. Petitioner does not provide any evidence that 

contradicts the record. Thus, a failure to raise a meritless argument does not constitute 

ineffective assistance. Boag, 769 F.2d at 1344. Accordingly, this claim for relief is 

DENIED.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

A petitioner complaining of detention arising from state court proceedings must 

obtain a certificate of appealability to file an appeal of the final order in a federal habeas 

proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2007). The district court may issue a certificate 

of appealability if the petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). To make a “substantial showing,” the petitioner 

must “demonstrat[e] that ‘reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of 

the constitutional claims debatable[.]’ ” Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 984 (9th 

Cir.2002) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Petitioner has not 

made a “substantial showing” as to any of the claims raised by his petition, and thus the 

Court sua sponte DENIES a certificate of appealability.

CONCLUSION

In sum, Petitioner has not established that the appellate court's decision was 

contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, or 

was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence 

presented in the state courts. The Court hereby: (1) adopts the Report in full; (2) rejects 

Case 3:16-cv-01211-CAB-WVG Document 29 Filed 09/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
8

16cv1211 CAB (WVG)

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

Petitioner's objections; (3) denies the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and (4) denies a 

certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01211-CAB-WVG Document 29 Filed 09/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8