United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) OVERRULING OBJECTIONS; (3) DENYING MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING; (4) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; (5) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; (6) DENYING REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED RULING; AND (7) DENYING MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AS MOOT (8) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE [Docket Nos. 9, 27, 31, 38, 42, 44]
ROGER T. BENITEZ, District Judge.
Petitioner William Allen Garrett, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docket No. 1). On July 24, 2014, Petitioner filed an ex parte request for an evidentiary hearing. (Docket No. 9.) Respondent filed a Response to the Petition on September 26, 2014, and Petitioner filed a Traverse on October 16, 2014. (Docket Nos. 19, 25). On December 29, 2014, Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the request for an evidentiary hearing and Petition be denied. (Docket No. 27). Between January 8, 2015 and January 16, 2015, Petitioner filed Objections to the R&R, an application for a certificate of appealability, and a request for expedited ruling. (Docket Nos. 28, 29, 31.)
On January 21, 2015, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit. (Docket No. 32.) Since that time, Petitioner has also filed copies of two documents he appears to have submitted to the state court of appeals and state superior court. (Docket Nos. 33, 36.) Most recently, Petitioner filed two motions for relief from judgment and a petition for writ of mandate. (Docket No. 38, 42, 44.) On March 9, 2015, this Court denied Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability. (Docket No. 40.) On April 14, 2015, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Petitioner's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (Docket No. 45.)
This Court has carefully considered the R&R and Petitioner's Objections. For the reasons stated below, this Court OVERRULES the Objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation.
A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" of a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "The district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and recommendation] that has been properly objected to." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). However, "[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. The Court will not restate the R&R and its conclusions as to every claim. Although the Court has conducted a de novo review and fully adopts the R&R, the Court will only specifically address those issues to which Petitioner has objected.
The following standard of review applies:
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).
A federal court may not issue a writ of habeas corpus "simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly." Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 773 (2010) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 411 (2000)). The state court's application must be "objectively unreasonable." Id. (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 409). The standard is thus "highly deferential" and "demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt." Id. (citations omitted).
I. Petitioner's Objections
A. Claims One and Two
As to Claims One and Two, it appears that Petitioner objects that he was interrogated when he was recovering from life threatening injuries, under the influence of pain ...