Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02328/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02328-0/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 - 03cv2128

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VALENTIN PENA,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 05cv2328 IEG (POR)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; AND

(2) DISMISSING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

WITH PREJUDICE, and (3)

DENYING PETITIONER A

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY PURSUANT TO

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

 (Doc. No. 1.)

vs.

GUILLERMINA HALL, Warden,

Respondent.

On November 21, 2005, Valentin Pena (“petitioner”), a state inmate proceeding pro se,

filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner, in his petition,

claims that: (1) counsel was “constitutionally ineffective under the Sixth and Fourteenth

Amendments” because counsel failed to both obtain a more favorable plea agreement and to

adequately investigate petitioner’s criminal history; and (2) the Superior Court violated

petitioner’s due process rights when it imposed a gun use sentence enhancement without finding

appropriate aggravating facts. (Pet. at 6-7.) 

The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule HC.2(a). On August 7, 2006, Magistrate Judge Porter

Case 3:05-cv-02328-IEG-POR Document 27 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 2
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

 See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (providing that a certificate shall issue “only if the applicant has

made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right.”). 

- 2 - 03cv2128

issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that the Court dismiss the

petition with prejudice. The Court, having reviewed de novo the Magistrate Judge’s Report, and

there being no objections filed to the Report, adopts the recommendation in full and DENIES the

petition for habeas corpus with prejudice. Furthermore, the Court denies petitioner a certificate of

appealability.1 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 28, 2006

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:05-cv-02328-IEG-POR Document 27 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 2