Shamoun v. People of the State of CA

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 HADEER SHAMOUN, Case No.: 20-CV-909 TWR (DEB) 12 Petitioner, ORDER (1) OVERRULING 13 v. PETITIONER’S OBJECTION, (2) ADOPTING REPORT & 14 STEPHANIE CLENDENIN, et al., RECOMMENDATION, 15 Respondents. (3) DENYING SECOND AMENDED PETITION, AND [16] (4) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 17 APPEALABILITY [18] (ECF Nos. 8, 13, 14) [19] 20 Presently before the Court is the Petitioner Hadeer Shamoun’s Second Amended 21 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“SAP,” ECF No. 8). 22 Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher has issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R,” 23 ECF No. 13) recommending that the Court deny the Second Amended Petition, to which 24 Petitioner has filed a timely Objection (“Obj.,” ECF No. 14).1 Having carefully reviewed 25 the Parties’ arguments, Magistrate Judge Butcher’s R&R, and the relevant law, the Court 26 / / / [28] 1 OVERRULES Petitioner’s Objection, ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety, DENIES the 2 Second Amended Petition, and DENIES Petitioner a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”). 3 BACKGROUND 4 Magistrate Judge Butcher’s R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the 5 factual and procedural history underlying the instant Second Amended Petition. (See R&R 6 at 2–4.) This Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein. 7 LEGAL STANDARD 8 When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation on a motion pending 9 before a district court judge, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those 10 portion of the report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, 11 in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 12 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 , 673–76 (1980); United 13 States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). But “[w]hen no timely objection is 14 filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 15 in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note 16 to 1983 amendment (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert. 17 denied, 419 U.S. 879 (1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 , 1121 18 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate 19 judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). 20 ANALYSIS 21 Magistrate Judge Butcher recommends dismissing Petitioner’s sole claim based on 22 the Superior Court’s “over-rul[ing]” the Court of Appeal’s remand for a restoration of 23 sanity trial pursuant to California Penal Code section 1026.2 on the grounds that 24 Petitioner’s claim is not subject to federal habeas review. (See R&R at 5–7.) Petitioner 25 objects “because [he] feel[s] that [his] due process rights [were] violated by [the] Superior 26 Court of San Diego” when it “denied [his] rights to a trial that was ordered by the appellate 27 court.” (Obj. at 1.) Petitioner’s Objection is improper because it fails to “specifically 28 identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are being made” and 1 merely rehashes Petitioner’s prior arguments. See Kenniston v. McDonald, No. 15-CV2 2724-AJB-BGS, 2019 WL 2579965 , at *8 (S.D. Cal. June 24, 2019) (concluding that 3 “general objections” merely rehashing arguments presented to the magistrate judge were 4 improper); see also, e.g., Arido-Sorro v. Ryan, No. CIV18219TUCCKJJR, 2020 WL 5 95478, at *3 (D. Ariz. Jan. 8, 2020) (reviewing report and recommendation for clearly 6 erroneous conclusions where the petitioner failed to make any specific objections to the 7 R&R), certificate of appealability denied, No. 20-15098, 2020 WL 4197031 (9th Cir. 8 June 11, 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 570 (2020). In any event, Magistrate Judge Butcher 9 specifically addressed this argument in his R&R, concluding that “any due process 10 challenge to the Superior Court’s mootness finding and refusal to hold a new trial fails 11 because the Superior Court’s rulings were consistent with California law.” (See R&R at 6 12 (citing Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37 , 41–42 (1984); Mendez v. Knowles, 556 F.3d 757 , 13 773–74 (9th Cir. 2009); People v. Sword, 29 Cal. App. 4th 614, 620 (1994); People v. 14 Super. Ct. (Woods), 219 Cal. App. 3d 614, 617 (1990)).) Even on de novo review, the 15 Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Butcher’s reasoning and recommendation regarding 16 Petitioner’s due process argument. 17 Having reviewed the R&R in its entirety, the Court finds that it is thorough, well18 reasoned, and contains no clear error. The Court therefore OVERRULES Petitioner’s 19 Objection, ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Butcher’s R&R in its entirety, and DENIES 20 Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition. 21 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 22 A petitioner may not appeal “the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which 23 the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court” except where “a 24 circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(1)(A). 25 “A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial 26 showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2). The Supreme 27 Court has further explained: “When the district court denies a habeas petition on 28 procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a 1 certificate of appealability should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of 2 ||reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 3 || constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district 4 ||court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 5 Because the Court finds that no reasonable jurist would find 1t debatable whether the 6 || Court was correct in its determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus 7 relief, the questions presented by the Second Amended Petition do not warrant further 8 || proceedings. The Court therefore DENIES a COA. 9 CONCLUSION 10 In light of the foregoing, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s Objection (ECF No. 11 ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Butcher’s R&R in its entirety (ECF No. 13), DENIES 12 || Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition (ECF No. 8), and DENIES Petitioner a Certificate 13 Appealability. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. [15] Dated: August 31, 2021 [pass Aas Tan \Qbn— □ Honorable Todd W. Robinson 18 United States District Court