Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01199/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01199-1/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

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 - 06cv1199

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL PATRICK FELIX,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06 CV 1199 JM (AJB)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND 

(2) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS 

vs.

JAMES E. TILTON, Acting Secretary of the

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation,

Respondent.

On June 7, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254 challenging his June 24, 2004 conviction in San Diego Superior Court for committing a lewd

act upon a child, attempting to commit a lewd act upon a child, and child molestation. Petitioner was

sentenced to serve 60 years to life, consisting of four consecutive 15-years-to-life terms. Respondent

answered the petition on August 19, 2006. Petitioner was given the opportunity to file a traverse but

did not do so, nor has he requested an extension of time in which to do so. The matter was referred

to Magistrate Judge Anthony J. Battaglia for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Judge

Battaglia issued the R&R on November 27, 2006, now before the court for review. See Docket No.

7. The parties were given leave to file written objections to the R&R no later than December 12,

2006; replies to objections were to be filed no later than December 26, 2006. To date no party has

filed any objections. For the reasons set forth below, the court wholly ADOPTS the conclusions and

findings contained in the R&R, incorporated by reference herein.

/ / / 

Case 3:06-cv-01199-JM-AJB Document 8 Filed 01/17/07 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 The R&R also correctly concluded that this court lacks jurisdiction to address Petitioner’s claim that

his sentence violates the California Constitution. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). 

- 2 - 06cv1199

The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R are set forth in

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636. The district court “shall make

a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made. A judge of the

court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980). 

Having conducted a de novo review of the papers submitted, the court finds the R&R presents

a thorough and sound analysis of the issues raised by the parties. The R&R correctly found that

Petitioner had failed to show that adjudication of his state court proceedings was contrary to or

involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

Petitioner argued that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and

unusual punishment in light of the fact that he suffers from cerebral palsy and has the mental capacity

of a young boy. However, for the reasons stated in the R&R, the record shows that Petitioner’s

sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime, even when Petitioner’s personal

circumstances are taken into account. R&R at 11; Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 271 (1980).1

The R&R also correctly found that Petitioner had failed to show that his conviction was based

on an unreasonable determination of the facts. § 2254(d)(2). As Judge Battaglia explained in detail,

there was substantial evidence to support Petitioner’s conviction for attempting to commit a lewd act

on a child. R&R at 9.

For the foregoing reasons, the court ADOPTS in whole the findings and conclusion contained

in the R&R. Accordingly, the petition is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 17, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: Magistrate Judge Battaglia

All Parties 

Case 3:06-cv-01199-JM-AJB Document 8 Filed 01/17/07 Page 2 of 2