Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01536/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01536-1/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

CLIFFORD PATTERSON,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 13cv1536-MMA (DHB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

[Doc. No. 15]

DENYING FIRST AMENDED

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. No. 5]

DECLINING TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILIY

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation,

Respondent.

Petitioner Clifford Patterson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a first

amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (“petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254, challenging his May 25, 2010 conviction and the resulting sixteen-year

sentence for assault with a deadly weapon. See Doc. No. 5. Petitioner raises the

following grounds for relief: (1) breach of plea agreement relating to a prior

conviction; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel during sentencing of a prior

- 1 - 13cv1536-MMA (DHB)

Case 3:13-cv-01536-MMA-DHB Document 31 Filed 01/30/15 Page 1 of 3
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

conviction; (3) ineffective assistance of counsel during trial based on the cumulative

effective of numerous errors; (4) prosecutorial misconduct; and (5) judicial errors. 

Respondent answered the Petition. See Doc. No. 12. Petitioner did not file a

Traverse. 

The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick

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

and Civil Local Rule HC.2. Judge Bartick issued a thorough and well-reasoned

Report recommending the Court deny the petition. See Doc. No. 15. 

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). Although the Court granted Petitioner four separate extensions of time to do

so, Petitioner has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, and the

time to do so has now expired. See Doc. Nos. 17, 19, 23, 27.1

Accordingly, the Court concludes Judge Bartick issued an accurate report and

well-reasoned recommendation. The Court ADOPTS the Report and

Recommendation in its entirety and DENIES Petitioner’s first amended petition

with prejudice. 

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

1

 The Court notes that it declined Plaintiff’s ex parte request for a fifth extension of time to file an objection. See Doc. No. 30. The Court reasoned that because

Petitioner had previously received four extensions of time—and therefore had almost

six months to file an objection—Petitioner had sufficient time to file an objection and had not demonstrated good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) to warrant a further extension of time. See id.

- 2 - 13cv1536-MMA (DHB)

Case 3:13-cv-01536-MMA-DHB Document 31 Filed 01/30/15 Page 2 of 3
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

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

and incorporated herein, the Court finds that this standard has not been met and

therefore DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability in this case.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation

in its entirety and DENIES Petitioner’s first amended petition with prejudice. The

Court further DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 30, 2015

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13cv1536-MMA (DHB)

Case 3:13-cv-01536-MMA-DHB Document 31 Filed 01/30/15 Page 3 of 3