Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02730/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02730-1/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

NICKALOS DEMOND GRAY,

Petitioner,

v.

RONALD J. RACKLEY, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 14cv2730 JAH (RBB)

ORDER ADOPTING THE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION AND

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS AND

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Nickalos Gray’s petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254. Respondent filed an answer and a

supplemental answer to the petition. Petitioner did not file a traverse. Pursuant to

28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1), the Honorable Ruben B. Brooks, United States Magistrate

Judge, submitted a Report and Recommendation (“report”) to this Court recommending

denial of the petition. After careful consideration of the pleadings and relevant exhibits

submitted by the parties, and for the reasons set forth below, this Court ADOPTS Judge

Brooks’ report in its entirety, DENIES the instant petition in its entirety and DENIES a

certificate of appealability.

BACKGROUND1

On May 2, 2012, a jury convicted Petitioner of car jacking in violation of California

1

 The underlying facts set forth in the report are adopted in toto, and referenced as if fully set forth

herein. This Court provides only a brief procedural background.

14cv2730

Case 3:14-cv-02730-JAH-RBB Document 13 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 4
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

Penal Code section 215(a), and possession of a deadly weapon in violation of California

Penal Code 12020(a)(1). See Lodg. 1 at 130, 131. The jury also found Petitioner was

vicariously liable within the meaning of California Penal Code section 12022 (a)(1). Id.

at 129. Petitioner was sentenced to 4 years and 8 months in prison. See Lodg. 1 at 167. 

Petitioner appealed his conviction. See Lodg. 1 at 169. The California Court of Appeal

affirmed the judgment. See Lodg. 5. Petitioner filed a petition for review which the

California Supreme Court denied without opinion. See Lodg. 6. 

 Petitioner filed the pending petition in this Court on November 17, 2014, asserting

the following grounds for relief: 

1. The trial court committed prejudicial error when it excluded evidence of

third party culpability; 2. The prosecutor's conduct in arguing facts not in evidence in her closing argument made the trial fundamentally unfair; and 3. The aggregate of the prosecutor arguing facts not in evidence coupled with the trial court's failure to allow third party culpability warrants reversal. Respondents filed an answer to the petition on January 20, 2015, and filed a

supplemental response on May 28, 2015, upon Judge's Brooks’ order. Petitioner did not

file a traverse. Judge Brooks filed the report on August 11, 2016. Objections to the eport

were due by September 8, 2016. Neither party filed objections. 

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

The district court’s role in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the

district court “shall 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].” Id. When no objections

are filed, the Court may assume the correctness of the magistrate judge’s findings of fact

and the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.

2005) (stating that “de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is

made”); United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

2 14cv2730

Case 3:14-cv-02730-JAH-RBB Document 13 Filed 11/07/16 Page 2 of 4
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

(holding that 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(c) “makes it clear that the district judge must

review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made,

but not otherwise”). 

II. Analysis

The Court received no objections to the Report. As such, the Court assumes the

correctness of Judge Brook’s factual findings and adopts them in full. The Court has

reviewed the report and all relevant papers submitted by the parties, and finds the report

provides a cogent analysis of the claims presented in the instant petition. 

 Specifically, the Court agrees with Judge Brooks’ determination that Petitioner’s

evidence of third party culpability,2

 had little probative value and, therefore, the exclusion

of the evidence was not so prejudicial as to serve as a basis of habeas relief. See Tinsley

v. Borg, 895 F.2d 520, 530 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Lincoln v. Sunn, 807 F.2d 805, 816

(9th Cir. 1987)). The Court further agrees with Judge Brooks’ determination that the

court of appeal reasonably concluded Petitioner’s constitutional rights were not violated

by the exclusion of this evidence.

The Court also agrees with Judge Brooks that the state court’s decision regarding

the prosecutor’s statements made during her closing argument which Petitioner asserts

argued facts not in evidence, was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly

established United States Supreme Court law, and there was no cumulative error based

upon the exclusion of third-party culpability evidence combined with the statements of

the prosecutor. 

Therefore, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. Accordingly, this

Court ADOPTS the report in full and DENIES the instant petition in its entirety.

III. Certificate of Appealability

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules following 28 U.S.C. section 2254, which was

2 The victim testified at a hearing that three days after the carjacking he saw an African-American man when walking near his home who stared at him several times and

shot a gun into the dirt, and two days later he saw the same man speaking to another African-American man walking down the street and staring at him. See Lodg. 5 at 5.

3 14cv2730

Case 3:14-cv-02730-JAH-RBB Document 13 Filed 11/07/16 Page 3 of 4
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

amended effective December 1, 2009, a district court now “must issue or deny a certificate

of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” A state prisoner

may not appeal the denial of a section 2254 habeas petition unless he obtains a certificate

of appealability from a district or circuit judge. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); see also

United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1269–70 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that district

courts retain authority to issue certificates of appealability under AEDPA). A certificate

of appealability is authorized “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To meet this threshold showing,

petitioner must show: (1) the issues are debatable among jurists of reason, (2) a court

could resolve the issues in a different manner, or (3) the questions are adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further. Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1024–25 (9th

Cir. 2000) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S.

880 (1983)).

Based on this Court’s review of the report, the Court finds no issues are debatable

among jurists of reason. This Court further finds no issues could be resolved in a different

manner. Lastly, this Court finds no questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to

proceed further. Accordingly, this Court DENIES Petitioner a certificate of appealability.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge presented in the Report

and Recommendation are ADOPTED in their entirety;

2. The instant petition is DENIED with prejudice in its entirety;

3. Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability;

4. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order.

Dated: November 7, 2016

 JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

4 14cv2730

Case 3:14-cv-02730-JAH-RBB Document 13 Filed 11/07/16 Page 4 of 4