Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02112/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02112-0/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 - 06cv2112

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY ALVAREZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06CV2112 WQH (JMA)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

vs. RECOMMENDATION

VICTOR M. ALMAGER, Warden,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge.

The matter pending before the court is the review of the Report and Recommendation of

Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler (Doc. # 11), filed June 4, 2007, recommending that Petitioner’s Writ

of Habeas Corpus be denied without prejudice. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner Anthony Alvarez seeks habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his

conviction of two counts of first degree residential burglary in state court. Petitioner claims that (1)

trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his

conviction; (3) the trial court should have stricken certain prior convictions; (4) California’s ‘three

strikes’ law should not have been applied in his case, and (5) his sentence of 60 years to life

constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. # 1). 

Respondent contends that (1) Petitioner was adequately represented; (2) the evidence

supported Petitioner’s conviction; (3) the California court’s refusal to strike Petitioner’s prior

Case 3:06-cv-02112-WQH-JMA Document 12 Filed 08/10/07 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 - 06cv2112

convictions raises no federal question; (4) challenges to California’s ‘three strikes’ law have been

rejected by the Ninth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court; and (5) the sentence was

appropriate given the nature of Petitioner’s crimes and Petitioner’s criminal record. (Doc.# 6). 

On January 18, 2007, Petitioner filed a traverse reaffirming the contentions raised in his

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. # 10). 

On June 4, 2007, Magistrate Judge Adler issued a Report and Recommendation recommending

that the District Court deny the Petition without prejudice. (Doc. # 11). The Magistrate Judge

concluded that Petitioner’s ineffective representation claim centers on his counsel’s trial strategy, and

that Petitioner failed to show that the representation was objectively unreasonable. The Magistrate

Judge also concluded that the evidence supporting Petitioner’s conviction was sufficient, and that

Petitioner’s claim that the trial court should have stricken certain prior convictions did not implicate

the federal constitution. Finally, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Petitioner’s sentence was not

cruel and unusual because Petitioner’s sentence was not grossly disproportionate to his crimes in light

of Petitioner’s serious and lengthy criminal history. 

Neither party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of the 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, the district court need not review de novo the Report and

Recommendation. 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);

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).

Case 3:06-cv-02112-WQH-JMA Document 12 Filed 08/10/07 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 - 06cv2112

CONCLUSION & ORDER

Neither party objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in this case.

Accordingly, and 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 Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (Doc.

# 11) in its entirety. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 11) is adopted in

its entirety and Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 1) is denied with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 10, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02112-WQH-JMA Document 12 Filed 08/10/07 Page 3 of 3