Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01898/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01898-1/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

17cv1898-MMA (WVG)

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

FABIAN LAMAR ROSSES,

Petitioner,

v.

RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 17cv1898-MMA (WVG)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED 

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

[Doc. No. 28]

DENYING SECOND AMENDED 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS; AND

[Doc. No. 19]

DECLINING TO ISSUE 

CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner Fabian Lamar Rosses, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, has filed a Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his convictions for three counts of sexual 

penetration of a child ten years old or younger and two counts of committing a lewd act 

upon a child under the age of fourteen. Doc. No. 19; see Doc. No. 26-2 at 109. 

Respondent filed an answer to the Petition, and Petitioner filed a traverse. Doc. Nos. 25, 

Case 3:17-cv-01898-MMA-WVG Document 29 Filed 05/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv1898-MMA (WVG)

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

27. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo for 

preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to Title 28, section 636(b)(1), and 

Civil Local Rule HC.2. Judge Gallo has issued a thorough and well-reasoned Report 

recommending that the Petition be denied. Doc. No. 28.

Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1), the Court must “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].” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due no later than April 5, 2019. 

Doc. No. 28 at 33. To date, no objections have been filed. See Docket.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Judge Gallo has issued an accurate Report and 

well-reasoned recommendation that the Petition be denied. The Court ADOPTS the 

Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court DENIES the Petition with 

prejudice.

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, a petitioner must show 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. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336 (2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). For the reasons 

set forth in the 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 3:17-cv-01898-MMA-WVG Document 29 Filed 05/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv1898-MMA (WVG)

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 Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2019

Case 3:17-cv-01898-MMA-WVG Document 29 Filed 05/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3