Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02287/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02287-2/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 1

 The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 1) and the Amended Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 27) will be collectively referenced as the “Petition.”

- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINH N. NGUYEN,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 05cv2287-WQH (WMc)

ORDER

vs.

GEORGE GIURBINO, Warden,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

William McCurine, Jr., filed on June 7, 2007, recommending that the Court deny Petitioner’s

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc # 30.)

BACKGROUND

In his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 1), filed December 15, 2005, and

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 27), filed January 16, 2007,1

 Petitioner

seeks habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state court conviction of one

count of conspiracy to commit murder and seven counts of attempted premeditated murder,

with true findings that Petitioner was armed with a firearm. Petitioner claims: (1) the trial

court failed to adequately instruct the jury with respect to the overt act element of the

conspiracy charge; (2) the trial court failed to stay the conspiracy count in accordance with the

legislature’s intent in California Penal Code § 654; (3) appellate counsel rendered ineffective

assistance for failing to raise the overt act claim on appeal; (4) trial counsel rendered

ineffective assistance at trial for failure to investigate an intoxication defense; (5) trial counsel

rendered ineffective assistance for failure to present an intoxication defense during trial or

Case 3:05-cv-02287-WQH-WMC Document 31 Filed 07/31/07 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 -

sentencing; and (6) that Petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing and appointment of

counsel.

Respondent filed an Answer (Doc. # 13) on August 18, 2006, and a First Amended

Answer (Doc. # 28) on January 30, 2007. Petitioner filed a Traverse (Doc. # 20) on October

18, 2006, and an amended Traverse (Doc. # 29) on February 14, 2007. 

On June 7, 2007, Magistrate Judge McCurine issued the Report and Recommendation

recommending that this Court deny the Petition and deny Petitioner’s request for an

evidentiary hearing. (Doc. # 30.) The Magistrate Judge concluded: (a) Petitioner does not

state a claim for habeas relief when he argues that the appellate court incorrectly interpreted

California law in holding that driving away from a drive-by shooting could be an overt act in

furtherance of conspiracy to murder; (b) with respect to the overt act of hiding the gun, which

was improperly included in the jury instructions, the state appellate court’s analysis under the

harmless error standard articulated in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) was neither

contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent, and the Petitioner

suffered no prejudice as a result of the jury misinstruction; (c) the trial court did not err in

failing to stay the conspiracy count pursuant to California Penal Code § 654; (d) Petitioner’s

ineffective representation claims center on his counsel’s trial strategy, and Petitioner failed to

show that the representation was objectively unreasonable, and (with respect to the alleged

intoxication defense) Petitioner failed to show prejudice; and (e) Petitioner is not entitled to

an evidentiary hearing.

Neither party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of a district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to a Report and Recommendation, “[a] judge of

the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Report and

Recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn,

474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objections are filed, a district court need not review

Case 3:05-cv-02287-WQH-WMC Document 31 Filed 07/31/07 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

de novo the Report and Recommendation. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th

Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

When neither party objects to a Report and Recommendation, a district court may nevertheless

“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 Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080,

1088 (S.D. Cal. 2006); Or. Natural Desert Ass’n v. Rasmussen, 451 F. Supp. 2d. 1202, 1205

(D. Or. 2006).

DISCUSSION

Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 30). After reviewing

the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge correctly

concluded that Petitioner failed to show that he is entitled to federal habeas relief under the

applicable legal standards. The Magistrate Judge also correctly concluded that Petitioner’s

request for an evidentiary hearing should be denied. The Court adopts the Report and

Recommendation (Doc. # 30) in its entirety.

Petitioner also requests appointment of counsel. Although 18 U.S.C. § 3006A

authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of a § 2254 habeas case “if the interests of

justice so require,” see 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), the Court has determined that the interests

of justice do not require the assistance of counsel in this case. Petitioner’s request for

appointment of counsel is denied.

CONCLUSION

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 30) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus are DENIED, Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED, and

Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter

judgment in favor of Respondent.

DATED: July 31, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02287-WQH-WMC Document 31 Filed 07/31/07 Page 3 of 3