Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00093/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00093-1/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

14-cv-0093-JAH-RBB 

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

SITUE SAVELIO TOLUAO,

Petitioner,

v.

SOTO, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 14-cv-0093-JAH-RBB

ORDER OVERRULING 

PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS; 

ADOPTING THE REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION; DENYING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS; AND DENYING A 

CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Situe Savelio Toluao’s (“Petitioner”) petition 

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254, challenging his state court 

conviction. See Doc. No. 1. The Honorable Ruben B. Brooks, United States Magistrate 

Judge, submitted a report and recommendation (“report”) to this Court, recommending the 

petition be denied in its entirety. See Doc. No. 8. Petitioner filed objections to the Report, 

of which Respondent did not file a reply. [Doc. No. 9]. After careful consideration of the 

parties’ submissions, along with the entire record of this matter, this Court OVERRULES

Petitioner’s objections, ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report in its entirety, DENIES the 

instant petition, and DENIES a certificate of appealability.

Case 3:14-cv-00093-JAH-RBB Document 11 Filed 03/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

14-cv-0093-JAH-RBB 

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

BACKGROUND1

On November 20, 2009, a jury convicted Petitioner of first degree murder and 

attempted murder in violation of California Penal Code sections 187(a) and 664. 

Subsequently, on September 20, 2010, Petitioner was sentenced to 114 years to life in state 

prison. Petitioner timely filed an appeal with the California Court of Appeal, who rejected 

all of Petitioner’s claims and affirmed the judgment. Petitioner filed a petition for review 

with the California Supreme Court, which was denied without comment or citation. 

Petitioner filed the instant writ of habeas corpus with this Court on January 5, 2014. On 

March 21, 2014, Respondent filed a response, along with a Notice of Lodgment. Petitioner 

did not file a Traverse. On August 25, 2015, Judge Brooks filed a report recommending 

the Court deny Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition in its entirety. Petitioner has filed 

objections to the report in a document entitled “Objections to Report and Recommendation 

under 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1), 2254, and 2255.” No reply to Petitioner’s objections was filed. 

DISCUSSION

I. Scope of Review

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

recommendation is set forth in Title 28, United States Code, § 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, modify, in whole or in part, the findings 

or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].” Id. It is well-settled, under Rule 

72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that a district court may adopt those parts of 

a magistrate judge’s report to which no specific objection is made, provided they are not 

clearly erroneous. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153 (1985).

 

1 The underlying facts set forth in the magistrate judge’s report, to which plaintiff presents no objection, 

are adopted in toto, and referenced as if fully set forth herein. 

Case 3:14-cv-00093-JAH-RBB Document 11 Filed 03/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

14-cv-0093-JAH-RBB 

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

This petition is governed by the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997). Under 

AEDPA, a habeas petition will not be granted with respect to any claim adjudicated on the 

merits by the state court unless that adjudication: (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary 

to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law; or (2) 

resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light 

of the evidence presented at the state court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Early v. 

Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002). When there is no reasoned decision from the state’s highest 

court, the Court “looks through” to the underlying appellate court decision and presumes 

it provides the basis for the higher court’s denial of a claim or claims. See Ylst c. 

Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 805-06 (1991). “[S]o long as neither the reasoning nor the 

result of the state-court decision contradicts [Supreme Court precedent,]” the state court 

decision will not be “contrary to” clearly established federal law. Early, 537 U.S. at 8. 

Clearly established federal law, for the purposes of § 2254(d), means “the governing 

principle or principles set forth by the Supreme Court at the time the state court renders its 

decision.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 72 (2003).

II. Analysis

Petitioner alleges the following claims in his petition: (1) the trial court erred by 

admitting gang evidence; (2) Petitioner’s right to confront witnesses was violated with the 

admission of his codefendants statements concerning his involvement in the crime; (3) 

denial of severance request violated Petitioner’s right to a fair trial; (4) trial court admitted 

inadmissible hearsay evidence; (5) Petitioners constitutional rights were violated when the 

trial court denied motion for a new trial without evidentiary hearing; (6) trial court erred in 

denying Petitioner’s request for release of juror information; (7) trial court failed to dismiss 

the prior strike conviction allegation; and (8) Petitioner joins into arguments made by his 

co-Petitioner that would accrue to his benefit. 

It should be noted that Petitioner’s submitted objections are extremely difficult to 

comprehend and lacked basic sentence structure and organization throughout.

Case 3:14-cv-00093-JAH-RBB Document 11 Filed 03/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

14-cv-0093-JAH-RBB 

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

Nevertheless, after a thorough and detailed evaluation, the Court finds that no specific 

objections were made, as Petitioner fails to object–or even discuss–any particular finding 

or conclusion presented by the magistrate judge. As such, the Court will construe 

Petitioner’s objections as general objections to the magistrate judge’s report. When a 

petitioner presents general objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions, 

this Court may adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions presented in the 

report as long as they are not clearly erroneous. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 153. This Court’s 

careful de novo review of the record reflects the magistrate judge presented a cogent 

analysis of all of Petitioner’s claims and, thus, finds the magistrate judge’s findings and 

conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Therefore, Petitioner’s general objections are 

OVERRULED. Accordingly, this Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s findings and 

conclusions presented in the report in full and DENIES the instant petition in its entirety.

III. 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, the petitioner must demonstrate 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.’ ” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 475 (2000) (citation omitted). For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s 

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.

\\

\\

\\

\\

Case 3:14-cv-00093-JAH-RBB Document 11 Filed 03/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

14-cv-0093-JAH-RBB 

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

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation are OVERRULED;

2. The findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge presented 

in the report and recommendation are ADOPTED in their 

entirety;

3. The instant petition is DENIED with prejudice;

4. Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability; and

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

Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 27, 2018 

 

_________________________________

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00093-JAH-RBB Document 11 Filed 03/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5