Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00525/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00525-1/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

16-cv-0525-JAH-JMA 

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

DAVID LESLIE MANNING, Jr.,

Petitioner,

v.

STIRLING PRICE, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No.: 16-cv-0525-JAH-JMA

ORDER 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 David Leslie Manning Jr.’s (“Petitioner”) 

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

court conviction. See Doc. No. 1. The Honorable Jan M. Adler, United States Magistrate 

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

petition be denied in its entirety. See Doc. No. 20. No objections to the magistrate judge’s 

report were filed. After careful consideration of the parties’ submissions, along with the 

entire record of this matter, this Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report in its 

entirety, DENIES the instant petition, and DENIES a certificate of appealability.

Case 3:16-cv-00525-JAH-JMA Document 22 Filed 04/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

16-cv-0525-JAH-JMA 

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 January 30, 2013, the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office filed a felony 

complaint charging Petitioner with one count of stalking with a court order in effect, in 

violation of California Penal code § 646.9(b), and two counts of making a criminal threat, 

in violation of California Penal Code § 422. On April 15, 2013, Petitioner entered into a 

plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to stalking with a court order in effect, and the 

remaining counts were dismissed. The court sentenced Petitioner to a stipulated sentence 

of six years in prison. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California 

Court of Appeals on September 14, 2014, which was ultimately denied. Next, Petitioner 

filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the California Supreme Court on March 14, 

2016, which the court denied with a citation to In re Dixon, 41 Cal. 2d 756, 759 (1953). 

Petitioner then filed an additional petition for writ of habeas corpus with the California 

Court of Appeals, which was denied, citing In re Clark, 5 Cal. 4th 750, 767 (1993). 

Petitioner filed another petition with the California Supreme Court which was denied once 

more, this time with a citation to In re Miller, 17 Cal. 2d 734, 735 (1941). Finally, Petitioner 

filed the operative petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 with this 

Court on April 4, 2016. Upon receiving an answer from the Respondent, Judge Adler 

submitted a report to this Court, recommending the petition be denied in its entirety. 

Petitioner has filed no objections to the report. 

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 

 

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 3:16-cv-00525-JAH-JMA Document 22 Filed 04/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

16-cv-0525-JAH-JMA 

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

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).

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 police officer who 

reported to the scene falsified his report; (2) this falsified report was used against him in 

his preliminary hearing; (3) the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing was 

insufficient and the Prosecution failed to establish every element; and (4) Petitioner claims 

his counsel was ineffective for failing to argue these points. 

Case 3:16-cv-00525-JAH-JMA Document 22 Filed 04/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

16-cv-0525-JAH-JMA 

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

The Court received no objections to the magistrate judge’s report, nor did Petitioner 

request additional time in order to file objections. As such, 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. 

Specifically, the Court agrees with Judge Adler’s finding that Petitioner’s habeas 

petition was procedurally barred from federal review. See Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 

573, 583 (9th Cir. 2003). California procedure requires that following a denial by the Court 

of Appeal the appellant must file a petition for review to the California Supreme Court, not 

a habeas corpus petition. See Cal. R. Ct. 8.508. Petitioner failed to demonstrate the 

inadequacy of the California procedure or how failure to consider his claims would result

in a fundamental miscarriage of justice, thus his claims are procedurally defaulted. See

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991). 

The Court also concurs with Judge Adler’s findings on the merits of Petitioner’s 

claims. In claims one and two, Petitioner argues the police report of the incident in question 

contained summaries of several voicemails left by Petitioner that omitted important 

portions of the voicemails, and that report was subsequently used against him at his 

preliminary hearing. However, a comparison of the police report and transcripts from the 

actual voicemails clearly illustrate that the police officer’s summation was not inaccurate. 

As to his third and fourth claims, Judge Adler correctly held that the evidence presented by 

the prosecution during the preliminary hearing was sufficient to establish probable cause 

in every count charged. Finally, the Court agrees that the representation by Petitioner’s 

counsel was not deficient, as Petitioner failed to establish either prong required by 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 

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.

Case 3:16-cv-00525-JAH-JMA Document 22 Filed 04/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

16-cv-0525-JAH-JMA 

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

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.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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;

3. Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability; and

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

Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 13, 2018 

 

_________________________________

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00525-JAH-JMA Document 22 Filed 04/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5