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.

Jackson v. Santana

United States District Court, S.D. California

July 8, 2019

TONY JACKSON, Petitioner,
v.
J. SANTANA, Warden, Respondent.

          ORDER (1) OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS; (2) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; AND (3) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF NO. 13)

          JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo's Report and Recommendation (“R&R, ” ECF No. 13), recommending that the Court deny Petitioner Tony Jackson's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1). Also before the Court is Petitioner's Objections to the R&R (“Objs., ” ECF No. 14). Respondent filed no objections or reply. Having considered the Parties' arguments and the law, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner's Objections, ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety, and DENIES the Petition.

         BACKGROUND

         Magistrate Judge Gallo's R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the factual and procedural history underlying the case. See R&R at 2-7. This Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein.

         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 report and recommendation. 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). In the absence of timely objection, however, 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. Review of Habeas Corpus Petitions Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

         This Petition is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) because it was filed after April 24, 1996 and Petitioner is in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997). Under AEDPA, a court may not grant a habeas petition “with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings, ” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), unless the state court's judgment “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, ” § 2254(d)(1), or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding, ” § 2254(d)(2).

         Where there is no reasoned decision from the highest state court to which the claim was presented, the court “looks through” to the last reasoned state court decision and presumes it provides the basis for the higher court's denial of a claim or claims. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 805-06 (1991); Cannedy v. Adams, 706 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2013), as amended on denial of rehearing, 733 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 571 U.S. 1170 (2014). Where “the last reasoned opinion on the claim explicitly imposes a procedural default, [a court] will presume that a later decision rejecting the claim did not silently disregard that bar and consider the merits.” Ylst, 501 U.S. at 803.

         A state court need not cite Supreme Court precedent when resolving a habeas corpus claim. See Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002). “[S]o long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the state-court decision contradicts [Supreme Court precedent, ]” the state court decision will not be “contrary to” clearly established federal law. Id.

         ANALYSIS

         Magistrate Judge Gallo recommends that the Petition be denied because it is procedurally barred under California's timeliness rule. See generally R&R. Petitioner objects to Magistrate Judge Gallo's finding that he failed to show cause why the Petition should still be allowed. See generally Objs. The Court reviews de novo those findings to which Petitioner objects.

         I. ...


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.