Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Castro v. Gipson

United States District Court, C.D. California

February 18, 2015

LUIS ALBERTO CASTRO, Petitioner,
v.
C. GIPSON, Respondent.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

R. GARY KLAUSNER, District Judge.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record, and has made a de novo determination.

Notably, Petitioner's Objections consist almost entirely of allegations that his trial counsel was ineffective. [ See Dkt. No. 20 at 2-13.] As a rule, a state prisoner must exhaust available state court remedies before presenting a habeas claim in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004). Here, Petitioner fails to establish that he has exhausted his ineffective-assistance claims in state court. [ See Dkt. No. 20 at 2-13.] Thus, they are inappropriate for federal habeas review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); Baldwin, 541 U.S. at 29. Accordingly, the Court declines to consider them. See McKinney v. Foulk, 2014 WL 2958001, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 1, 2014) (declining to consider unexhausted habeas claim raised for first time in objections to report and recommendation).

Otherwise, Petitioner's Objections generally reiterate, in conclusory fashion, the arguments made in the Petition, and lack merit for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The Report and Recommendation is approved and accepted;

2. Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice[1]; and

3. The Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties. Additionally, for the reasons set forth above and in the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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