Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01943/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01943-2/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-cv1943-MMA (BGS)

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

TYRONE ROGERS,

Petitioner,

v.

JOSIE GASTELO, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16-cv1943-MMA (BGS)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED 

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

[Doc. No. 20]

GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS;

[Doc. No. 16]

DECLINING TO ISSUE 

CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner Tyrone Rogers (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”), filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (“petition”)

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, section 2254, challenging his 1994 conviction 

for two counts of burglary in San Diego County Superior Court. See Doc. No. 8. 

Respondent Josie Gastelo (“Respondent”) moves to dismiss the petition arguing that: (1) 

the Court lacks jurisdiction over the petition as Petitioner cannot satisfy the “in custody” 

requirement under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 

(“AEDPA”); (2) the petition is time-barred under AEDPA; and (3) all claims are 

Case 3:16-cv-01943-MMA-BGS Document 27 Filed 09/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
-2- 16-cv1943-MMA (BGS)

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

procedurally defaulted. See Doc. No. 16. Petitioner filed an opposition to the motion on 

October 4, 2017. See Doc. No. 18. The Court referred the matter to United States 

Magistrate Judge Skomal for preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Civil Local Rule HC.2. Judge Skomal has issued a detailed 

and well-reasoned Report recommending that the Court grant Respondent’s motion to 

dismiss. See Doc. No. 20. Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation 

on August 31, 2018. See Doc. No. 21. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 

OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in 

its entirety.

DISCUSSION

1. Legal Standard

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). 

2. Analysis

As an initial matter, Petitioner asserts no specific objections to the Report and 

Recommendation. Rather, Petitioner’s objections reiterate the same arguments he raised 

in his petition and in his opposition to Respondent’s motion to dismiss. Petitioner 

generally argues that he meets AEDPA’s “in custody” requirement and that his petition is 

timely. See Doc. No. 21. 

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), a district judge must conduct a de novo review of those 

portions of the Report and Recommendation that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires “specific written objections to the proposed 

findings and recommendations.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “Because de novo 

review of an entire R & R would defeat the efficiencies intended by Congress, a general 

objection ‘has the same effect as would a failure to object.’” Warling v. Ryan, No. 12-

Case 3:16-cv-01943-MMA-BGS Document 27 Filed 09/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
-3- 16-cv1943-MMA (BGS)

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

CV-1396-PHX-DGC (SPL), 2013 WL 5276367, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2013) (quoting 

Howard v. Sec’y of HHS, 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)). Thus, the Court “has no 

obligation to review Petitioner’s general objection[s] to the R & R.” Id.; see also Lane v. 

United States, No. 16-CV-4231-PHX-DGC (DMF), 2018 WL 1581627, at *1 (D. Ariz. 

Apr. 2, 2018) (noting that the court will not “undertake a global reevaluation of the merits 

of Petitioner’s grounds for relief” to those portions of the report and recommendation that 

the petitioner did not specifically object to).

In any event, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the entire record and 

finds Petitioner’s objections to be without merit. Judge Skomal correctly found that 

Petitioner has failed to satisfy AEDPA’s “in custody” requirement. Further, Judge 

Skomal correctly concluded that the petition is untimely, Johnson v. United States, 135 S. 

Ct. 2251 (2015), does not apply to Petitioner’s claims, statutory and equitable tolling do 

not make the petition timely, and that Petitioner is not entitled to tolling pursuant to the 

actual innocence exception. 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Judge Skomal issued an accurate report and 

well-reasoned recommendation that Respondent’s motion be granted and the instant 

petition be dismissed. The Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections and ADOPTS

the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

Finally, it appears that in his objections to the Report and Recommendation,

Petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing to support his argument that he can satisfy an 

exception to AEDPA’s “in custody” requirement. See Doc. No. 21 at 4 (stating that his 

arguments regarding “the failure to appoint counsel” would be sufficient if the Court 

were to “grant Petitioner the ability to challenge his prior conviction and hold an 

evidentiary hearing to question [Petitioner’s] claims.”). Because Petitioner appears to 

seek a hearing on jurisdictional and procedural issues, the restrictions set forth by 28 

U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) do not necessary apply to Petitioner’s request. Regardless, Petitioner 

must allege facts which, if true, would entitle him to relief, in order to be entitled to an 

evidentiary hearing. See Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 2006) 

Case 3:16-cv-01943-MMA-BGS Document 27 Filed 09/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
-4- 16-cv1943-MMA (BGS)

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 the petitioner should have been granted a hearing by the district court 

because the alleged facts, if true, may warrant equitable tolling). Here, upon careful 

review of the record, the Court finds that Petitioner has not alleged facts that would 

impact the Court’s analysis with respect to Respondent’s motion to dismiss. Thus, the 

Court DENIES Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing. 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a 

district court that dismisses or denies a habeas petition to grant or deny a certificate of 

appealability in its ruling. See Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. 

§ 2254. For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has not shown “that reasonable jurists 

of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 

ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, the Court 

DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections, 

ADOPTS the Recommendation that the petition be dismissed, and DISMISSES the 

petition with prejudice. The Court DENIES Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary 

hearing and DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. The Clerk of Court is 

instructed to terminate this case and enter judgment in favor of Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-01943-MMA-BGS Document 27 Filed 09/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4