Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Darrow Haygood v. Matthew Cate

September 8, 2011

DARROW HAYGOOD,
PETITIONER,
v.
MATTHEW CATE, SECRETARY OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, ET AL.,
RESPONDENTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. Houston United States District Judge

ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS; ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; AND DENYING FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Darrow Haygood ("Petitioner") is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se with a first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Honorable William V. Gallo, United States Magistrate Judge, has issued a report and recommendation recommending that this Court deny the first amended petition in its entirety. After careful consideration of the pleadings and relevant exhibits submitted by the parties, and for the reasons set forth below, this Court OVERRULES Petitioner's objections, ADOPTS the Report, and DENIES the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

BACKGROUND

In San Diego County Superior Court case number SCE229595, a jury found Petitioner guilty of two counts of robbery (California Penal Code § 211), and found true allegations that the robberies were committed while acting in concert with two or more other persons and that the offense was committed in an inhabited dwelling house [Cal. Penal Code § 213(a)(1)(A)], that Petitioner personally used a firearm [Cal. Penal Code § 12022.53(b)], and that the robberies were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang [Cal Penal Code § 186.22(b)(1)]. (Respondent's Lodgment No. 1 at 139-40, 220-222.) The trial court sentenced Petitioner to a term of twenty-six years in state prison. (Respondent's Lodgment No. 1 at 226-227.)

Petitioner appealed his convictions to the California Court of Appeal. (Respondent's Lodgment Nos. 3, 4, 5.) On June 22, 2005, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (Respondent's Lodgment No. 6.)

Petitioner filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court. (Respondent's Lodgment No. 7.) On September 28, 2005, the California Supreme Court denied the petition for review without comment. (Respondent's Lodgment No. 8.)

On September 26, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Court of Appeal. (Respondent's Lodgment No. 9.) On August 28, 2007, the Court of Appeal denied the petition. (Respondent's Lodgment No. 10.)

On August 28, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court. (Respondent's Lodgment No. 11.) On February 13, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied the petition. (Respondent's Lodgment No. 12.)

On February 27, 2008, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. (Dkt. No. 1.) On March 5, 2008, this Court dismissed the petition without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 3.)

On April 1, 2008, Petitioner filed a first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. (Dkt. No. 4.) On May 22, 2008, the Honorable Barbara Lynn Major, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a report and recommendation ("the First Report"), recommending that the first amended petition be dismissed without prejudice based on Petitioner's failure to exhaust his Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 in state court. (Dkt. No. 8.) On October 15, 2008, this Court adopted in part the First Report, finding the first amended petition unexhausted as to Claims 1, 2, and 6 and ordering a further response from Petitioner. (Dkt. No. 12.)

On November 3, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion to stay the proceedings in this Court to allow him to return to state court to exhaust Claims 1, 2, and 6. (Dkt. No. 13.) On January 26, 2009, Judge Major issued a report and recommendation ("the Second Report"), recommending that the motion to stay be denied. (Dkt. No. 20.) On September 25, 2009, this Court issued an order adopting the Second Report and denying the motion to stay. (Dkt. No. 25.)

On October 5, 2009, Petitioner formally abandoned his unexhausted Claims 1, 2, and 6. (Dkt. No. 26.) On October 15, 2009, Judge Major ordered a response to the first amended petition. (Dkt. No. 27.) On February 9, 2010, Respondent filed an answer to the first amended petition. (Dkt. No. 35.) On March 10, 2010, Petitioner filed a traverse to Respondent's answer. (Dkt. No. 36.)

On July 23, 2010, Judge Gallo issued a report and recommendation ("the Third Report"), recommending that the first amended petition be denied in its entirety.*fn1 (Dkt. No. 37.) On August 10, 2010, Petitioner filed objections to the Third Report. (Dkt. No. 38.) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.