United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER: (1) OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS,
(2) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, (3) DENYING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND (4) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY (ECF NO. 1, 12, 15)
Hon.
Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge
Presently
before the Court is Petitioner Juan Vasquez's Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) Also before the
Court is Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick's Report and
Recommendation, (R&R, ECF No. 12), advising the Court to
deny the Petition, and Petitioner's Objections to the
R&R, (Objections, ECF No. 15). Having considered the
facts and the law, the Court (1) OVERRULES
Vasquez's Objections, (2) ADOPTS the
R&R in its entirety, (3) DENIES
Vasquez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and (4)
DENIES a Certificate of Appealability.
BACKGROUND
Judge
Bartick's R&R contains a thorough and accurate
recitation of the factual and procedural history underlying
the instant motion. (R&R 2-4, ECF No. 12.) This Order
incorporates by reference the background as set forth in the
R&R.
LEGAL
STANDARD
I.
Review of the Report and Recommendation
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
set forth a district court's duties in connection with a
magistrate judge's R&R. The district court must
"make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to
which objection is made, " and "may 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); see also United States v. Raddatz,
447 U.S. 667, 673-76 (1980); United States v.
Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in
the absence of timely objection, the Court "need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of
the record in order to accept the recommendation."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note (citing
Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th
Cir. 1974)).
II.
Cognizable Claim for Federal Relief
Under
federal law, a prisoner seeking relief on claims related to
imprisonment may file a petition for habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A federal court "shall
entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus [on]
behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a
state court only on the ground that he is in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Federal courts
reviewing § 2254 petitions are bound by a state's
interpretation of its own laws. Estelle v. McGuire,
502 U.S. 62, 72 (1991).
The
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)
controls the review of federal habeas petitions. Premo v.
Moore, 562 U.S. 115, 120-21 (2011). AEDPA establishes a
"highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court
rulings, " requiring "that state-court decisions be
given the benefit of the doubt." Woodford v.
Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002). A federal court can
grant habeas relief only when the result of a claim
adjudicated on the merits by a state court "was contrary
to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly
established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court
of the United States, " or "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); Harrington v. Richter, 562
U.S. 86, 100 (2011).
A state
court's decision is "contrary to" clearly
established federal law if it (1) applies a rule that
contradicts governing Supreme Court authority, or (2)
"confronts a set of facts that are materially
indistinguishable from" a Supreme Court decision but
reaches a different result. Early v. Packer, 537
U.S. 3, 8 (2002) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529
U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000)). An "unreasonable"
application of precedent "must have been more than
incorrect or erroneous"; it "must have been
'objectively unreasonable.'" Wiggins v.
Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520-21 (2003). An unreasonable
application of federal law is not the same as an incorrect
application of federal law. Richter, 562 U.S. at
101-02 (reversing the court of appeals for conducting what
was essentially a de novo review of federal issues
adjudicated by a state court). Rather, if "fair-minded
jurists could disagree" on an application of federal
law, habeas relief is not allowed. Id. (citing
Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004)).
This standard is intended to be "difficult to meet,
" because habeas relief is meant to '"guard
against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice
systems, ' not [to be] a substitute for ordinary error
correction through appeal." Id. at 102-03
(citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 332 n.5
(1979)).
Further,
even if a reviewing federal court determines a constitutional
error has occurred, relief is only authorized if the
petitioner can show that the error had "a substantial
and injurious effect or influence" on his conviction or
sentence. Bains v. Cambra, 204 F.3d 964, 977-78 (9th
Cir. 2000).
With
regard to state courts' factual determinations, federal
courts are not tasked with determining whether a "state
court's determination was incorrect but whether that
determination was unreasonable-a substantially higher
threshold." Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465,
473 (2007); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S.
362, 410 (2000). Federal courts are required to presume the
correctness state a state court's factual determinations
"unless applicants rebut this presumption with
'clear and convincing evidence.'"
Schriro, 550 U.S. at 473-74 (quoting §
2254(e)(1)).
When
the state court issues a summary denial of arguments first
presented in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the
California Supreme Court, the habeas petitioner has the
burden of showing "there was no reasonable basis for the
state court to deny relief." Richter, 562 U.S.
at 98. When a lower state court has reviewed the claims in
question, however, the reviewing federal court should
"look through" to the last reasoned opinion on the
matter. See Cannedy v. Adams,706 F.3d 1148, 1157
(9th Cir. 2013) (reasoning that "because the California
Supreme Court summarily denied the petition, [the court] must
'look through' that judgment to the last reasoned
state-court decision on the merits, " which would be the
California Court of Appeal) amended on denial ofreh
'g,733 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Ylst
v. Nimnemaker,501 U.S. 797, 803 (1991) ("Where
there has been one reasoned state judgment rejecting a
federal claim, later unexplained orders upholding that
...