Herman Lawrence Howard v. James Robertson ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HERMAN LAWRENCE HOWARD, Case No. 2:17-02245 DDP (ADS) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 14 JAMES ROBERTSON, et al., UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DISMISSING CASE 15 Respondents. 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of 18 Habeas Corpus [Dkt. No. 1], all the records and files herein, along with the Report and 19 Recommendation dated December 30, 2019 of the assigned United States Magistrate 20 Judge [Dkt. No. 52], and Petitioner’s Objection to Report and Recommendation of 21 United States Magistrate Judge [Dkt. No. 63]. The Court has engaged in a de novo 22 review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have 23 been made. 24 1 In his Objections, Petitioner attempts to raise an “alternative violation of due 2 process” for Grounds One, Two, Three, and Five. [Dkt. No. 63, pp. 2-3]. However, a 3 petition for writ of habeas corpus must specify all grounds for relief in the petition itself. 4 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 2(c)(1); see also Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 5 656 (“A prime purpose of Rule 2(c)’s demand that habeas petitioners plead with 6 particularity is to assist the district court in determining whether the State should be 7 ordered to show cause why the writ should not be granted.” (internal citation and 8 quotations omitted)); [Dkt. No. 1, p. 5 (“For this petition, state every ground on which 9 you claim that you are being held in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 10 United States.”)]. Petitioner did not allege due process claims in the Petition and did 11 not previously seek leave to amend the Petition to include them. Thus, the Court may 12 not grant relief on those claims. 13 Petitioner also requests an evidentiary hearing. [Dkt. No. 63, p. 23]. Petitioner 14 argues that an evidentiary hearing would validate the facts he alleges to support his 15 claims. [Dkt. No. 63, pp. 7-11]. However, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the 16 state record received and reviewed by the Court is insufficient to resolve his claims. See 17 Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (federal court’s habeas review ordinarily “is 18 limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the 19 merits”); Schrirro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007). Thus, the request for an 20 evidentiary hearing is denied. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 22 1. The United States Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 23 No. 52] is accepted; 24 2. The request for an evidentiary hearing [Dkt. No. 63, p. 23] is denied; 1 3. The Petition is dismissed with prejudice; and 2 4. Judgment is to be entered accordingly. 3 4 || DATED: JULY 10, 2024 5 THE HONORABLE DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24