Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00233/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00233-2/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 - 06cv233 WQH (PCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY PENTON,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06cv233 WQH (PCL)

ORDER

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, Warden,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters pending before the Court are (1) the review of the Report and

Recommendation (Doc. # 36) filed on August 31, 2007 by the United States Magistrate

Judge Peter C. Lewis, (2) the Motion for Order Extending Time for Appeal (Doc. # 38),

and (3) the Motion for Order Directing Litigation Coordinator at C.S.P. SAC “Linda

Young” to Grant Petitioner (8) Hours a Week Law Library Access. (Doc. # 43). 

I. Background

On October 2, 2006, Petitioner Anthony Penton filed an Amended Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. # 21). On March 28,

2007, Respondent filed an Answer to the Petition. (Doc. # 28). On August 17, 2007,

Petitioner filed a Traverse to Respondent’s Answer. (Doc. # 35). On August 31, 2006,

United States Magistrate Judge Lewis issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that this Court deny habeas corpus relief. (Doc. # 36). The parties were

ordered to file objections to the Report and Recommendation on or before September 21,

Case 3:06-cv-00233-WQH-RBM Document 45 Filed 12/20/07 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
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 - 06cv233 WQH (PCL)

2007. 

On September 27, 2007, Petitioner filed a Motion for Order Extending Time to File

Objections to Report and Recommendation. (Doc. # 40). The Court granted the Motion

and extended the time to file objections to the Report and Recommendation to November 7,

2007. (Doc. # 41). Neither party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

On September 27, 2007, Petitioner filed a “Motion for Order Extending Time for

Appeal.” (Doc. # 38). 

On October 22, 2007, Petitioner filed a “Motion for Order Directing Litigation

Coordinator at C.S.P. SAC ‘Linda Young’ to Grant Petitioner (8) Hours a Week Law

Library Access.” (Doc. # 43). 

II. Review of the Report and Recommendation

The duties of the district court in connection with a Report and Recommendation of

a Magistrate Judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When the parties object to a Report and Recommendation, “[a]

judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

[Report and Recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district

court need not review the Report and Recommendation de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416

F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Neither party objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in this

case, and this Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The

Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the denial of

Petitioner’s motion for new trial did not violate his right to confrontation or due process as

protected by the United States Constitution; that enhancing Petitioner’s sentence based on

his strike prior conviction did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States

Case 3:06-cv-00233-WQH-RBM Document 45 Filed 12/20/07 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
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

 Petitioner contends that the prosecutor failed to timely disclose portions of a police report

which contained exculpatory information. The Report and Recommendation states that these portions

of the police report “were disclosed to the defense on November 6, 1999, two days before the trial

ended.” R&R, page 32, lines 13-15 (citing Petition, p. 100). The Court notes that the November 6,

1999 date appears to be inaccurate because the trial ended on November 8, 2000, when the jury found

Petitioner guilty. Lodgment 1, p. 105-112. However, this apparent inaccuracy does not undermine

the finding in the Report and Recommendation that the disputed portions of the police report were

disclosed before the trial ended. 

- 3 - 06cv233 WQH (PCL)

Constitution; that California’s Three Strikes law is not void for vagueness; that there was

sufficient evidence presented at trial to convict Petitioner; that Petitioner’s trial and

appellate counsel were not ineffective; that the trial judge’s imposition of upper terms for

Petitioner’s sentence did not violate Petitioner’s right to due process or trial by jury as

protected by the United States Constitution; that Petitioner is procedurally barred from

attacking the validity of his prior conviction in this Court; that Petitioner has not shown that

prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of exculpatory evidence and caused him prejudice1

;

and that the trial court’s exclusion of evidence was a reasonable application of Supreme

Court authority. The Court therefore adopts all portions of the Report and

Recommendation. 

III. Review of the Motion for Order Extending Time for Appeal

Petitioner “moves the Court for an order extending the time for appeal to the United 

States Court of Appeal[s] for the Ninth Circuit to and including December 7, 2007 on the

grounds of excusable neglect.” (Doc. # 38). 

Petitioner bases his Motion on Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure, which prescribes the time limits for appealing judgments, orders or other

decisions of the court in a civil case. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). The Court construes the Motion

in favor of Petitioner. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t., 839 F.2d 621, 623

(9th Cir. 1988). The Court denies the Motion for Order Extending Time for Appeal as

unripe because the Motion fails to reference any existing judgment, order or other decision

of the Court that Petitioner wishes to appeal, but is precluded from appealing in light of the

time limits prescribed in Rule 4(a).

Case 3:06-cv-00233-WQH-RBM Document 45 Filed 12/20/07 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 - 06cv233 WQH (PCL)

IV. Review of the Motion for Order Directing Litigation Coordinator at C.S.P.

SAC “Linda Young” to Grant Petitioner (8) Hours a Week Law Library Access

Petitioner contends that he is currently entitled to two hours a week of law library

access which is inadequate in light of his pending habeas petition and because he has been

forced to gather outdated information which has negatively impacted his Motion for

Extension of Time to File Objections to the Report and Recommendation and Motion for

Order Extending Time for Appeal. Petitioner moves the Court for an order directing the

authorities at the prison where he is incarcerated to allow him eight hours a week of law

library access until he fully exhausts his habeas petition in the federal district and circuit

courts. 

“[T]he fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison

authorities to assist inmates with the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by

providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained

in the law.” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977). However, the problems of prison

administration and reform are “complex and intractable . . . and are not readily susceptible

of resolution by decree . . . . When a state penal system is involved, federal courts have . . .

additional reason to accord deference to the appropriate prison authorities.” Procunier v.

Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 404-405 (1973). “There is no minimum requirement that a state

must meet in order to provide indigent prisoners with meaningful access to the courts.” 

King v. Ativeh, 814 F.2d 565, 258 (9th Cir. 1987). In order to show a violation of the right

of access to the courts, the prisoner must allege “actual injury” which occurs when an

prisoner “demonstrate[s] that the alleged shortcomings in the law library or legal assistance

program hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350

(1996). 

The Court has extended the time for Petitioner to prepare and submit various filings

related to his Petition. Petitioner has not specified any additional research that is necessary

at this stage. Petitioner has also failed to demonstrate that additional access to the law

library would have prevented injury to his Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections

to the Report and Recommendation, which the Court granted, or the Motion for Order

Case 3:06-cv-00233-WQH-RBM Document 45 Filed 12/20/07 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 - 06cv233 WQH (PCL)

Extending Time for Appeal, which, as previously discussed, the Court did not deny based

on a lack of critical legal information that Petitioner could have obtained through additional

legal research. At this stage of the proceedings and in light of the deference accorded to

prison authorities, the Court declines to order “Litigation Coordinator at C.S.P. SAC Linda

Young” to grant Petitioner eight hours a week of law library access. 

V. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all portions of the Report and Recommendation

filed on August 31, 2007 (Doc. # 36) are ADOPTED and the Amended Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 21) is DENIED. It is further ordered that the Motion for Order

Extending Time for Appeal (Doc. # 38) is DENIED. It is further ordered that the Motion

for Order Directing Litigation Coordinator at C.S.P. SAC “Linda Young” to Grant

Petitioner (8) Hours a Week Law Library Access (Doc. # 43) is DENIED. 

DATED: December 20, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00233-WQH-RBM Document 45 Filed 12/20/07 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5