Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02723/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02723-1/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 – 14cv2723 

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 

MICHAEL DAYNE 

BRIDGEMAN, 

 Petitioner, 

Case No. 14-cv-02723-BAS(DHB) 

ORDER: 

(1)OVERRULING 

PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS 

(ECF NOS. 27, 31, 33); 

(2)APPROVING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION (ECF 

NO. 22); 

(3)GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS (ECF NO. 15); AND 

(4)DENYING AS MOOT MOTION 

TO APPOINT COUNSEL (ECF 

NO. 29) 

 v. 

JAMES D. DUTTON, ET AL.,

 Respondents. 

 

 On November 17, 2014, Petitioner Michael Dayne Bridgeman (“Petitioner”), 

a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this Petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”).) 

As ground one, Petitioner argues that “[t]he trial court imposed an ille[g]al charge.” 

(Pet. at 3.) Petitioner appears to take issue with: (1) the fact that the prosecutor moved 

to amend the Information to change the victim’s name, but it never occurred; and (2) 

the fact that his expert witness testified “out of order in the middle [of] the 

Case 3:14-cv-02723-BAS-DHB Document 34 Filed 02/26/16 Page 1 of 5
 – 2 – 14cv2723 

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 

prosecution’s case.” (Id.) As ground two, Petitioner argues that “[t]he Trial Court 

Abused its Discretion in Denying [his] Motion for Appointment of New Counsel 

(Marsden Motion) and [his] Sixth Amendment Right to Cou[n]sel.” (Id. at 6.) 

 In 2012, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this district 

seeking relief from the same conviction. (ECF No. 16 at Lodgment No. 4.) On May 

7, 2014, the Honorable Roger T. Benitez denied Petitioner’s prior petition on the 

merits and denied a certificate of appealability. (Id. at Lodgment No. 8.) 

 Respondent now moves to dismiss this Petition because it is an unauthorized 

second or successive petition, it is barred by the statute of limitations, and it contains 

an unexhausted claim. (ECF No. 15.) U.S. Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick filed 

a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Motion to Dismiss 

be granted because it is a second or successive petition and Petitioner has not obtained 

permission to file the Petition. (ECF No. 22.) Alternatively, the R&R recommends 

granting the Motion to Dismiss because the Petition is untimely and presents an 

unexhausted claim. (Id.) Petitioner filed Objections (ECF No. 27), Supplemental 

Objections (ECF No. 31), and Second Supplemental Objections (ECF No. 33) to the 

R&R, and moves for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 29). 

 Having reviewed the matter de novo, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s 

objections (ECF Nos. 27, 31, 33), APPROVES and ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety 

(ECF No. 22), GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15), and DENIES AS 

MOOT Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 29). 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

 The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Report to which objections 

are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole 

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. But 

“[t]he statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)] makes it clear that the district judge must 

review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is 

made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 

Case 3:14-cv-02723-BAS-DHB Document 34 Filed 02/26/16 Page 2 of 5
 – 3 – 14cv2723 

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 

Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. 

Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, 

the district court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge’s report). “Neither 

the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings 

and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d at 1121. This rule of law is well-established in the Ninth Circuit and this 

district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, 

de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & 

R.”); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) 

(adopting report in its entirety without review because neither party filed objections 

to the report despite the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F. Supp. 

2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.). 

 Objections must be written and specific. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) 

(“[A] party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings 

and recommendations” of the magistrate judge.) “Numerous courts have held that a 

general objection to the entirety of a Magistrate Judge’s [report and recommendation] 

has the same effect as a failure to object.” Alcantara v. McEwen, No. 12-cv-401-

IEG(DHB), 2013 WL 4517861, at *1 (S.D. Cal. August. 15, 2013) (citing cases). In 

the absence of specific objection, the clear weight of authority indicates that the court 

need only satisfy itself that there is no “clear error” on the face of the record before 

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation. See, e.g., id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 

Advisory Comm. Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. Of 

Cal., 501 F.3d 5, 7 (9th Cir. 1974)). 

II. ANALYSIS 

In this case, Petitioner has filed several “objections” to the R&R. (ECF Nos. 

27, 31, 33.) However, the objections merely re-state his arguments that he should 

have been granted new counsel and that he was illegally convicted. In his 

Supplemental Objections, he appears to add additional claims that the jury was 

Case 3:14-cv-02723-BAS-DHB Document 34 Filed 02/26/16 Page 3 of 5
 – 4 – 14cv2723 

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 

incorrectly instructed to take the expert’s word “like anybody elses” and all the 

prosecution witnesses perjured themselves. (ECF No. 31 at 2.) However, nowhere 

does Petitioner explain why Magistrate Judge Bartick’s recommendation that this 

petition be dismissed because it is an unauthorized successive petition is wrong. He 

cannot do so. As explained in Magistrate Judge Bartick’s thoroughly well-reasoned 

R&R, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this Petition. See 28 U.S.C. 

§2244(b); Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152-57 (2007) (per curiam); Hill v. 

Alaska, 297 F.3d 897, 899 (9th Cir. 2002) (a second-in-time habeas petition which 

attacks a prisoner’s underlying conviction for the second time is a “prime example” 

of a “second or successive petition” under § 2244(b)); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 

1270, 1273 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[A] new petition is ‘second or successive’ if it raises 

claims that were or could have been adjudicated on their merits in an earlier 

petition.”). In addition, as Judge Bartick explained, the Petition is untimely and 

presents an unexhausted claim. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(d)(1), 2254(b). 

Because Petitioner has failed to object to the reasons underlying Magistrate 

Judge Bartick’s recommendation, and because Magistrate Judge Bartick’s reasoning 

and conclusion are sound, this Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections (ECF 

Nos. 27, 31, 33), APPROVES and ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety (ECF No. 22), 

and GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15). 

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections 

(ECF Nos. 27, 31, 33), APPROVES and ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety (ECF No. 

22), and GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15). Because the Court 

dismisses the Petition, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Petitioner’s Motion for 

Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 29.) The Court further ORDERS the Clerk of 

Court to enter judgment dismissing the Petition. 

 Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal 

by a state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus may not be taken to the court of 

Case 3:14-cv-02723-BAS-DHB Document 34 Filed 02/26/16 Page 4 of 5
 – 5 – 14cv2723 

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 

appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). 

A certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant makes 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, 537 U.S. at 

336 (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Here, Petitioner has not 

made the requisite showing. Because reasonable jurists would not find that the 

Petition should have been resolved in a different manner, the Court DECLINES to 

issue a certificate of appealability. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 26, 2016 

Case 3:14-cv-02723-BAS-DHB Document 34 Filed 02/26/16 Page 5 of 5