Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00856/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00856-1/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 - 08cv0856

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJAMIN D. RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 08cv0856-LAB (RBB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION AND

DENYING WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

vs.

HERNANDEZ, Warden R.J. Donovan,

Respondent.

Petitioner Benjamin Rodriguez, a state prisoner, filed his second amended federal

habeas petition in this Court on October 23, 2008. (Doc. No. 11.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636, his petition was referred to Magistrate Judge Brooks for a report and recommendation

(“R&R”). Respondent filed a motion to dismiss Rodriguez’s petition on December 15, 2008.

(Doc. No. 13.) Judge Brooks issued his R&R on March 20, 2009. (Doc. No. 15.) Rodriguez

did not oppose Respondent’s motion to dismiss, nor did he file an objection to the R&R. 

Rodriguez is in custody for committing a lewd act upon a child with substantial sexual

conduct, a charge to which he pled guilty. He was sentenced to a 20-year term, with nine

strikes placed on his record, on May 3, 2007. (R&R, 2.) He has alleged four grounds for

habeas relief. First, the judge abused his discretion at sentencing. (Pet. 6.) Second, the

nine strikes included in his sentence violate the 8 Amendment. (Pet. 7.) Third, his 14

th th

Amendment rights were violated by his sentence. (Pet. 8.) Fourth, a breach of courtroom

Case 3:08-cv-00856-LAB-RBB Document 16 Filed 08/17/09 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

- 2 - 08cv0856

administration violated his rights under the 6 Amendment. (Pet. 9.) The Court agrees with

th

the R&R and DENIES Rodriguez’s habeas petition. 

I. Legal Standard

Because Rodriguez is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his pleadings liberally

and affords the benefit of any doubt. See Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621,

623 (9 Cir. 1988). Of course, “[p]ro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that

th

govern other litigants.” 

“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s

disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or

modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the

magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). In other words, “the district

judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection

is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9 Cir.

th

2003 (en banc). 

II. Discussion

Rodriguez’s failure to object to the R&R is of substantial consequence. Not only does

it mean the Court need not review the R&R de novo, but the R&R itself warned the parties

that “failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

district court’s order.” (R&R, 14.) 

Respondent argues that Rodriguez’s petition should be dismissed with prejudice

because the claims are procedurally defaulted. The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds

that it thoroughly and correctly considered this question, concluding:

“Petitioner’s claims have been defaulted by an independent and

adequate state procedural rule – the failure to obtain a certificate

of probable cause. Rodriguez has not shown cause and

prejudice for the default or that a fundamental miscarriage of

justice will result.”

(R&R, 12.) The Court agrees.

//

// 

Case 3:08-cv-00856-LAB-RBB Document 16 Filed 08/17/09 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

- 3 - 08cv0856

III. Conclusion 

The Court ADOPTS the R&R. Respondent’s motion to dismiss Rodriguez’s habeas

petition is GRANTED, and the petition is DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 16, 2009

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00856-LAB-RBB Document 16 Filed 08/17/09 Page 3 of 3