Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-03009/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-03009-2/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

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

LEVI JAMES,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 13cv3009 GPC (WVG)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS 

(ECF NO. 1.)

vs.

HEIDI LACKNER, et al.,

Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Levi James (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro per, filed

a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus(“Petitioner ”) under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No.

1.) Respondent, Heidi Lackner (“Respondent”), filed an answer to the Petition, (ECF

No. 4), and Petitioner filed his Traverse. (ECF No. 8.) On June 3, 2014, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the HonorableWilliamV.Gallo, United States Magistrate Judge

(“Magistrate Judge”) submitted a report and recommendation (“R&R”), recommending

that this Court deny the Petition. (ECF No. 9.) After a thorough review of the issues

and for the reasons set forth below, this Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R

and DENIES the Petition.

II. BACKGROUND

Following a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted on June 7, 2012 in San Diego

- 1 - 13cv3009 GPC (WVG)

Case 3:13-cv-03009-GPC-WVG Document 10 Filed 08/04/14 Page 1 of 5
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

County Superior Court Case number SCN302219 of four counts: (1) robbery; (2)

assault with a deadly weapon; (3) burglary; and (4) and petty theft. (Lodgment No. 1

at 18-21.) Petitioner was sentenced to a total prison term of four years and eight

months. (Id. at 159-60, 178.)

Petitioner appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth

Appellate District, Division One. (Lodgment No. 3.) On June 26, 2013, the appellate

court affirmed Petitioner’s conviction as to counts (1)-(3) and reversed his conviction

for petty theft in count (4), finding that it was a lesser included offense of robbery in

Petitioner’s case. (Lodgment No. 6 at 9.) Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review

in the California Supreme Court, (Lodgment No. 7), and the California Supreme Court

denied the petition without comment on September 11, 2013. (Lodgment No. 8.)

On December 6, 2013, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(“Petition”). (ECF No. 1.) In his Petition, Petitioner alleges that his Constitutional

right to due process was violated by the state court “failing to Sua Sponte grant a

mistrial after the government’s witness failed to obey in limine orders of the court.” 

(Id. at 14-15.) Petitioner also contends that his Constitutional right to access to the

courts has been violated because he has received his legal mail with significant delay

and opened by staff while in custody. (Id. at 14.) However, Petitioner concedes that

this claim concerning his legal mail is unexhausted. (Id.)

On February 11, 2014, Respondent filed an answer to the Petition. (ECF No.

14.) On March 10, 2014, Petitioner filed his Traverse. (ECF No. 8.) On June 3, 2014,

after fullyconsidering the Petition, Respondent’s answer, and Petitioner’s Traverse,the

Magistrate Judge issued the R&R, recommending this Court deny the Petition. (ECF

No. 9.)

III. LEGAL STANDARD

In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, a district 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

- 2 - 13cv3009 GPC (WVG)

Case 3:13-cv-03009-GPC-WVG Document 10 Filed 08/04/14 Page 2 of 5
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

or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed.

R. Civ. P. 72(b). However, when neither party timely objectsto the magistrate judge’s

proposed findings of fact, the district court “may assume their correctness and decide

the motion on the applicable law.” Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court for the N. Dist. of

Cal., 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974). Under such circumstances, the Ninth Circuit

has held that “a failure to file objections only relieves the trial court of its burden to

give de novo review to factual findings; conclusions of law must still be reviewed de

novo.” Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Britt v. Simi

Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Petitioner’s Claims

The Court received no objections to the R&R and no request for an extension of

time in which to file any objections. Therefore, the Court assumes the correctness of

the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and adopts them in full. The Court has

conducted a de novo review, independently reviewing the R&R and all relevant papers

submitted by both parties, and finds that the R&R provides a correct analysis of the

claims presented in the instant petition.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the recommendation that Petitioner’s due

process claim be denied, and DENIES Petitioner’s violation of due process claim.

1

B. Request for Evidentiary Hearing

Petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing in his Petition. (ECF No. 1 at 13, 15.) 

Petitioner offers no arguments in support of his request. (ECF No. 1.) “In habeas

proceedings, an evidentiary hearing is required when the petitioner’s allegations, if

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determination that Petitioner’s claim

1

concerning the delivery of mail while in custody does not warrant habeas relief. (ECF No. 9 at 11.) 

“An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment

of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies

available in the courts of the State.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). By Petitioner’s own admission, he

has not met the exhaustion requirement for this claim. (ECF No. 1 at 14.) Therefore, the Court

ADOPTS the recommendation that Petitioner’s mail delivery claim be denied, and DENIES

Petitioner’s mail delivery claim.

- 3 - 13cv3009 GPC (WVG)

Case 3:13-cv-03009-GPC-WVG Document 10 Filed 08/04/14 Page 3 of 5
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

proven, would establish the right to relief.” Totten v. Merkle, 137 F.3d 1172, 1176

(9th Cir. 1998). “However, an evidentiary hearing is not required on issues that can be

resolved by reference to the state court record.” Id. Here, the Court can resolve

Petitioner’s claims based on the state court record. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing.

C. Request for Appointment of Counsel

Petitioner further requests appointment of counsel in his Petition. (ECF No. 1

at 15.) Petitioner again offers no arguments in support of his request. (ECF No. 1.) 

The Ninth Circuit has held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply

in habeas corpus actions. Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). 

“Indigentstate prisoners applying for habeas corpusrelief are not entitled to appointed

counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel

is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196

(9th Cir. 1986) (citing Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir.1970) (per curiam);

Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir.1965)). The district court has discretion

to appoint counsel for indigents when it determines “that the interests of justice so

require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(g). Finding that Petitioner’s Petition does not necessitate

assistance of counsel to prevent due process violations, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s

request for appointment of counsel. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196.

D. Certificate of Appealability

Petitioner requests a certificate of appealability in his Traverse. (ECF No. 8 at

2.) Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, “[t]he district court

must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to

the applicant.” A certificate of appealability should be issued only where the petition

presents “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(2). A certificate of appealability “should issue when the prisoner shows . . .

that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim

of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable

- 4 - 13cv3009 GPC (WVG)

Case 3:13-cv-03009-GPC-WVG Document 10 Filed 08/04/14 Page 4 of 5
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

whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Based on the Court’s review of the Petition, the Court finds no

issues are debatable among jurists of reason and that no jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. See id. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability.

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court

ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R in its entirety and DENIES the Petition, (ECF

No. 1), with prejudice and without leave to amend. The Clerk of Court is instructed to

close the case.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 4, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 5 - 13cv3009 GPC (WVG)

Case 3:13-cv-03009-GPC-WVG Document 10 Filed 08/04/14 Page 5 of 5