Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02314/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02314-1/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

16cv2314-MMA (KSC)

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

DANIEL CASTRO,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT KERNAN, Secretary,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16cv2314-MMA (KSC)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED 

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

[Doc. No. 22]

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT 

OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND

[Doc. No. 1]

DECLINING TO ISSUE 

CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner Daniel Castro has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“petition”) 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction for driving with a blood alcohol 

level (“BAC”) of 0.08 percent or more and causing injury, pursuant to Cal. Vehicle Code 

§ 23153(b). Doc. No. 1. Specifically, Petitioner claims his Fourth Amendment right was 

violated when “blood was taken and tested” without a warrant and that the trial court 

should have granted his motion to suppress evidence of his blood sample. Id. at 6. 

Case 3:16-cv-02314-MMA-KSC Document 23 Filed 12/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16cv2314-MMA (KSC)

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

Respondent answered on the merits, requesting the petition be denied. Doc. No. 5. 

Petitioner did not file a traverse. See Docket.

The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford for 

preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and 

Civil Local Rule HC.2. Judge Crawford has issued a thorough and well-reasoned Report 

recommending that the Court deny Petitioner’s claim for relief and dismiss the petition. 

See Doc. No. 22.

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). 

Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due no later than November 17, 

2017. Doc. No. 22 at 7. To date, no objections have been filed.1 See Docket.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Judge Crawford has issued an accurate 

report and well-reasoned recommendation. The Court ADOPTS the Report and 

Recommendation in its entirety and DENIES Petitioner’s petition with prejudice.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that “the district 

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

to the applicant.” A certificate of appealability is not issued unless there is “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 (or, for 

that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or 

that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” 

 

1 The Clerk of Court served Petitioner with a copy of the Report and Recommendation via U.S. Mail on 

October 18, 2017. See Doc. No. 22.

Case 3:16-cv-02314-MMA-KSC Document 23 Filed 12/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16cv2314-MMA (KSC)

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

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted)). For the reasons set forth in the 

Report and Recommendation and incorporated herein, the Court finds that this standard 

has not been met and therefore DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability in this 

case.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in 

its entirety and DENIES Petitioner’s petition with prejudice. The Court further 

DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 15, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02314-MMA-KSC Document 23 Filed 12/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3