United States District Court, S.D. California
September 19, 2005.
VICTOR HUGO SANCHEZ, Petitioner,
TOM L. CAREY, Warden, et al. Respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: NAPOLEON JONES, District Judge
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION;
(2) GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS; and
(3) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH PREJUDICE
Currently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Adler's Report
and Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending that Respondent's Motion
to Dismiss be granted, and that the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus ("Petition"), filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, be
denied. Petitioner Victor Hugo Sanchez ("Petitioner") did not
file any objections to the R&R. The issues presented herein are
decided without oral argument. See Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in
its entirety, GRANTS Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and DENIES the Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus in its entirety. Background Facts
On January 15, 1999, the San Diego Superior Court sentenced
Petitioner to seven years in state prison after Petitioner
pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon while personally
inflicting great bodily injury. (Lodgment No. 1 at 1-3.)
On August 4, 2000, the San Diego Superior Court denied an
appeal by Petitioner because Petitioner had waived his right to
appeal and had stipulated to his sentence. (Lodgment No. 5 at
1-2.) On December 1, 2000, the California Court of Appeal denied
an appeal by Petitioner because Petitioner had waived his right
to appeal. (Lodgment No. 7.)
In February of 2001, Petitioner apparently sent a letter to the
California Court of Appeal regarding his conviction. The
California Court of Appeal did not treat the letter as a formal
petition, but rather replied to Petitioner by sending a letter
stating that Petitioner should have been aware he had stipulated
to his seven year sentence. (R&R at 2-3.)
In August of 2004, Petitioner attempted to file a petition for
writ of error coram nobis. (Lodgment No. 8.) The California
Supreme Court returned the petition to Petitioner because it had
no jurisdiction to grant coram nobis relief. (Lodgment No. 10.)
On September 30, 2004, Petitioner filed the present Petition in
this Court. On January 14, 2005, Respondent filed a Motion to
Dismiss, to which Petitioner never filed a Response.
The duty of a district court in connection with a Magistrate
Judge's report and recommendation in habeas cases such as this is
set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When objections are made, the Court
must make a de novo determination as to those parts objected
to. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980). When no
objections are filed, the Court may assume the correctness of the
Magistrate Judge's findings of fact and decide the motion on the
applicable law. Campbell v. United States Dist. Court,
501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974). Under such circumstances, the Ninth
Circuit has held that "a failure to file objections only relieves
the trial court of its burden to give de novo review to factual
findings; conclusions of law must still be reviewed de novo."
Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley
Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)).
There being no objections, the Court assumes the correctness of
the facts as set forth in the Report and Recommendation. The
Court finds, after conducting a de novo review of the
magistrate judge's conclusions of law, that the report accurately
states and applies the law. The Court ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation in its entirety, GRANTS the motion to dismiss
the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and DENIES the Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Conclusion and Order
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the R&R,
GRANTS Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus, and DENIES the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.