Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02491/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02491-1/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

16cv2491-CAB-NLS

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

KENNETH OZUA,

Petitioner,

v.

JOHN SUTTON,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16cv2491-CAB-NLS

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc. 

No. 13]; (2) GRANTING MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO ASSERT 

PROCEDURAL DEFAULTS [Doc. 

No. 11]; (3) REJECTING 

PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS; (4) 

DENYING PETITION; AND (5) 

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

Kenneth Ozua (“Petitioner”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

[Doc. No. 1.] On March 28, 2017, Magistrate Judge Nita Stormes issued a Report and 

Recommendation (“Report”) to grant the motion for leave to assert procedural defaults 

and to deny the Petition. [Doc. No. 13.] On April 25, 2017, Petitioner filed a Traverse. 

[Doc. No. 16.] On May 1, 2017, Petitioner filed an objection to the Report. [Doc. No. 

18.] 

Following de novo review of Petitioner’s claims, the Court finds the Report to be 

thorough, complete, and an accurate analysis of the legal issues presented in the petition. 

Case 3:16-cv-02491-CAB-NLS Document 19 Filed 06/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

16cv2491-CAB-NLS

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

For the reasons explained below, the Court: (1) adopts the Report in full; (2) grants the 

motion for leave to assert procedural defaults in the Answer; (3) rejects Petitioner’s 

objections; (4) denies the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and (5) denies a certificate 

of appealability.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background

The Report contains an accurate description of the crime [Doc. No. 13 at 5-6], and 

is hereby incorporated by reference.

II. State Procedural Background

The Report contains a complete and accurate summary of the state court 

proceedings, and the Court fully adopts the Report’s statement of state procedural 

background.

III. Federal Procedural Background

On October 3, 2016, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

challenging his San Diego Superior Court conviction. [Doc. No. 1.] On February 7, 

2017, Respondent filed an Answer to the Petition, and lodged portions of the state court 

record. [Doc. Nos. 10 and 12.] Respondents also filed a motion for leave to assert 

procedural defaults in Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Doc. No. 11.]

On March 28, 2017, Magistrate Judge Stormes issued a Report recommending that 

the motion for leave to assert procedural defaults in the Answer be granted, and that the 

petition be denied. [Doc. No. 13.] On April 25, 2017, Petitioner filed a Traverse. [Doc. 

No. 16.] On May 1, 2017, Petitioner filed Objections to the Report. [Doc. No. 18.] In 

his objections, Petitioner requests that the Court consider his Traverse, which was filed 

after the Report. Assuming Petitioner has objected to the Report in its entirety, the Court 

reviews the Report de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009, 

1022 (9th Cir. 2004).

/ / / / /

/ / / / / 

Case 3:16-cv-02491-CAB-NLS Document 19 Filed 06/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

16cv2491-CAB-NLS

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

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

The Report sets forth the correct standard of review for a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d):

(d) 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 with 

respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court 

proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim-

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable 

application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the 

Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of 

the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 403, 412-13 (2000). 

Under § 2254(d)(1), a state court's decision is “contrary to” clearly established 

federal law if the state court (1) “arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by this 

Court on a question of law” or (2) “confronts facts that are materially indistinguishable 

from a relevant Supreme Court precedent and arrives at a result opposite to ours.” 

Williams, 529 U.S. at 405. A state court's decision is an “unreasonable application” if the 

application was “objectively unreasonable.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75-76 

(2003).

Under § 2254(d)(2), habeas relief is not available due to a state court's 

“unreasonable determination of the facts” unless the underlying factual determinations 

were objectively unreasonable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 (2003); see 

also Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 341-42 (2006) (the fact that “[r]easonable minds 

reviewing the record might disagree” does not render a decision objectively 

unreasonable).

II. Analysis.

A. Procedural Default.

Most of Petitioner’s Traverse is dedicated to whether or not his petition is 

procedurally barred. [Doc. No. 18 at 13-18.] However, this Court agrees with Magistrate 

Case 3:16-cv-02491-CAB-NLS Document 19 Filed 06/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

16cv2491-CAB-NLS

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

Judge Stormes that it is in the “interests of judicial economy” to address the merits of 

Petitioner’s claim without determining whether it is procedurally defaulted. [Doc. No. 13 

at 13.] Therefore, Petitioner’s objections with regard to procedural default are denied as 

moot.1

B. Merits.

Petitioner argues that there was a failure to plead and prove the gang involvement 

element of the firearm use enhancement. [Doc. No. 1 at 6-8.] Petitioner argues that he 

unknowingly pled guilty to California Penal Code §12022.53(e)(1), which provides: 

“The enhancements provided in this section shall apply to any person 

who is a principal in the commission of an offense if both of the following 

are pled and proved: 

(A) The person violated subdivision (b) of Section 186.22.

(B) Any principal in the offense committed any act specified in subdivision

(b), (c), or (d).”

Cal. Penal Code § 12022.53(e)(1) (West 2012); see also Cal. Penal Code § 186.22(b) 

(providing for additional terms of punishment for persons convicted of a felony which 

was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal 

street gang).

However, Petitioner was convicted, by plea, of violating Section 12022.53(d), 

which provides:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in the 

commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a), Section 246 or 

subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 26100, personally and intentionally 

discharges a firearm and proximately causes great bodily injury, as defined 

in Section 12022.7, or death, to any person other than an accomplice, shall 

be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the 

state prison for 25 years to life.

 

1 Magistrate Judge Stormes recommends rejecting Respondent’s contention that Petitioner’s claim is 

barred by Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973). For the reasons set forth by Magistrate Judge 

Storms [Doc. No. 13 at 15-16], this Court agrees with the Report and rejects Respondent’s contention

that Petitioner’s claim is barred by Tollett. 

Case 3:16-cv-02491-CAB-NLS Document 19 Filed 06/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

16cv2491-CAB-NLS

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

Unlike Section 12022.53(e), subdivision (d) does not require a violation of 

186.22(b). Therefore, Petitioner was not required to admit his involvement in any 

gang-related activity for Section 12022.53(d) to apply. As a result, the state 

appellate court’s adjudication of Petitioner’s claim is neither contrary to, nor 

involves an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, or was 

based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence 

presented in the state court proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Williams, 529 U.S. 

at 412-13; Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 340. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report 

and denies the petition.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

A petitioner complaining of detention arising from state court proceedings 

must obtain a certificate of appealability to file an appeal of the final order in a 

federal habeas proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2007). The district court 

may issue a certificate of appealability if the petitioner “has made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). To make a 

“substantial showing,” the petitioner must “demonstrat[e] that ‘reasonable jurists 

would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable[.]’” 

Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Petitioner has not made a “substantial showing” as to 

the claim raised by his petition, and thus the Court sua sponte denies a certificate 

of appealability.

CONCLUSION

In sum, Petitioner has not established that the appellate court's decision was 

contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal 

law, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the 

evidence presented in the state courts. The Court hereby: (1) adopts the Report in 

full; (2) grants the motion for leave to assert procedural defaults in the Answer; (3) 

Case 3:16-cv-02491-CAB-NLS Document 19 Filed 06/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

16cv2491-CAB-NLS

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

rejects Petitioner's objections; (4) denies the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; 

and (5) denies a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02491-CAB-NLS Document 19 Filed 06/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6