Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01190/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01190-1/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

ROMEO BALBIN DUMLAO, JR.,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 13cv1190-MMA (JLB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

[Doc. No. 98]

DENYING FIRST AMENDED

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS;

[Doc. No. 87]

DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTIONS FOR EVIDENTIARY

HEARING AND DISCOVERY

[Doc. Nos. 95, 97]

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, Secretary,

Respondent.

Petitioner Romeo Balbin Dumlao, Jr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has

filed a first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (“petition”) pursuant to Title

28, United States Code, section 2254, challenging his June 10, 2010 conviction for

gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, with sentencing enhancements for

infliction of great bodily injury. See Doc. No. 87. Petitioner also requests an

evidentiary hearing and leave to conduct discovery. See Doc. Nos. 95, 97. These

matters were referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt for

preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to Title 28, section

- 1 - 13cv1190

Case 3:13-cv-01190-MMA-JLB Document 104 Filed 03/28/16 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

636(b)(1), and Civil Local Rule HC.2. Judge Burkhardt has issued a thorough and

well-reasoned Report recommending that all relief requested by Petitioner be denied. 

See Doc. No. 98. Petitioner objects to the Report and Recommendation on various

grounds. See Doc. No. 103. 

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). The Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report to

which Petitioner objects and finds his objections to be without merit and immaterial

to the ultimate resolution of the issues raised in his petition.1

 

Accordingly, the Court concludes the Judge Burkhardt issued an accurate

Report and well-reasoned recommendation that the petition be denied. The Court

OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections and ADOPTS the Report and

Recommendation in its entirety. The Court DENIES the petition with prejudice and

DENIES Petitioner’s motions for an evidentiary hearing and discovery.

///

///

1

 With respect to Petitioner’s argument regarding his trial counsel’s failure to challenge the sentencing enhancements for great bodily injury, Petitioner cites People v. Weaver, 149 Cal. App. 4th 1301 (2007). The Court notes that Weaver was expressly disapproved recently by the California Supreme Court in People v. Cook, 60 Cal.4th

922 (2015), in which the court held that under California Penal Code section

12022.7(g), “great bodily injury enhancements simply do not apply to murder or

manslaughter.” Id. at 935. At least one state appellate court has applied Cook’s holding to grant collateral relief and vacate a defendant’s sentence that included great bodily injury enhancements related to his conviction of vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, despite the finality of that conviction. See In Re Julian, 2016 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 809 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Feb. 1, 2016). Petitioner has not challenged his sentence based on the California Supreme Court’s holding in Cook in these

proceedings. As such, it is not for this Court to say whether he would be entitled to any such relief. However, Petitioner may seek relief on these grounds via a writ of habeas corpus in state court. It would, of course, be incumbent on Petitioner to adequately explain and justify his failure to present the claim in his prior state court petitions. See

In re Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750, 774-775 (1993). 

- 2 - 13cv1190

Case 3:13-cv-01190-MMA-JLB Document 104 Filed 03/28/16 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

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

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

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

The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close the

case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 28, 2016

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13cv1190

Case 3:13-cv-01190-MMA-JLB Document 104 Filed 03/28/16 Page 3 of 3