Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01099/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01099-2/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 - 05cv1099

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR GERARDO,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 05 CV 1099 JM (WMc)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION AND (2) 

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

vs.

A.K. SCRIBNER, Warden,

Respondent.

In 2000, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, was convicted in San Diego Superior

Court of first degree murder, manufacture of methamphetamine, and possession of methamphetamine

for sale. On May 4, 2005, Petitioner filed the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Initially, the petition was filed in the United States District Court for the Central

District of California, but was thereafter transferred to this court. Respondent answered on December

20, 2005. On October 25, 2006, United States Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr. issued a

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the petition be denied. See Docket No.

22. Petitioner filed timely objections. For the reasons set forth below, the court wholly adopts the

conclusions and findings contained in the R&R, incorporated by reference herein.

The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R are provided for

in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636. The district court “shall

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made. A judge

of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made

by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980). 

Case 3:05-cv-01099-JM-WMC Document 27 Filed 02/13/07 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 - 05cv1099

Having conducted a de novo review of the papers submitted, the court finds the R&R presents

a thorough and sound analysis of the issues raised by the parties. The R&R properly found that

Petitioner’s constitutional rights were not violated over the course of his state criminal proceedings.

As the R&R carefully explains, Petitioner’s Due Process argument that there was insufficient evidence

to support his convictions is procedurally barred pursuant to Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722,

729-30 (1991) (providing that a federal court will not review question of federal law decided by state

court if the state court decision rests on a state law ground that is independent and adequate to support

the judgment). Also, for the reasons set forth in the R&R, Petitioner’s rights under the Fourteenth

Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause were not violated when the prosecution exercised its

peremptory challenges to remove three potential jurors who were African-American.

In his objections, Petitioner repeats arguments made in his petition, arguments which the R&R

addresses correctly and in full. In addition, Petitioner argues for the first time in his objections that

(1) his state conviction is invalid on ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and

“trial errors and misconduct” grounds and (2) his drug convictions were supported by insufficient

evidence. Since these grounds were not raised in the petition or any of the briefing, the magistrate had

no occasion to consider them. Generally, the court is not required to address arguments raised for the

first time in objections to a magistrate judge’s report. See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-

22 (9th Cir. 2000). Although Petitioner is a pro se litigant against whom rules of procedure are not

always strictly enforced, the court finds that these the new arguments do not raise “a relatively novel

claim under a relatively new statute” warranting consideration of the new arguments. See Brown v.

Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding that district court abused its discretion by failing to

address pro se petitioner’s argument raised for first time in objections to magistrate judge’s report

when petitioner was “functionally illiterate” and “was making a relatively novel claim under a

relatively new statute.”). Moreover, even if this court were to address Petitioner’s new arguments,

these arguments provide no basis for modifying or rejecting the R&R, or for recommitting the matter

for further proceedings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (requiring objecting party to make a “specific

written objection” to magistrate judge’s report). Finally, Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary

hearing is denied as moot in light of this order. 

Case 3:05-cv-01099-JM-WMC Document 27 Filed 02/13/07 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 - 05cv1099

Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. The petition is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 13, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: Magistrate Judge McCurine 

All Parties 

Case 3:05-cv-01099-JM-WMC Document 27 Filed 02/13/07 Page 3 of 3