(DP) Contreras v. Davis ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JORGE CONTRERAS, Case No. 1:19-cv-01523-AWI-SAB 11 Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE 12 v. ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY 13 RONALD DAVIS, Warden of San Quentin State DISTRICT JUDGE OF MAGISTRATE Prison, JUDGE’S RULING 14 Respondent.1 (ECF No. 75) 15 16 On June 9, 2021, Petitioner Jorge Contreras, through counsel, timely moved the District 17 Court for reconsideration in-part of the assigned Magistrate Judge’s May 26, 2021 order denying 18 his March 29, 2021 motion for miscellaneous relief and directing that Respondent file an 19 amended lodging of the state record. 20 Respondent Warden Ronald Davis has not opposed the reconsideration motion and the 21 time for doing so has passed. Eastern District of California Local Rule (hereinafter “L.R.”) 22 303(d). 23 No hearing date has been set and the Court finds that none is required. The matter is 24 deemed submitted for a decision.2 L. R. 303(e). 25 1 Ron Broomfield, Acting Warden of San Quentin State Prison, is substituted for Ronald Davis, former Warden of 26 San Quentin State Prison, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 25(d). 27 2 See Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial Emergency in the Eastern District of California, and General Orders in the Eastern District of California regarding COVID-19 Emergency available at: 1 Having considered Petitioner’s instant motion, the record and the controlling law, the 2 Court will deny reconsideration, as explained below. 3 I. BACKGROUND 4 On December 11, 1996, Petitioner was convicted of first degree felony murder and 5 robbery, with the special circumstance of murder in the commission of the robbery, and 6 sentenced to death. See Tulare County Superior Court Case No. 37619. 7 On June 17, 2008, Petitioner filed his automatic appeal. People v. George Lopez 8 Contreras, California Supreme Court Case No. S058019. On December 12, 2013, the California 9 Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner’s judgment of conviction and sentence. People v. George 10 Lopez Contreras, 58 Cal. 4th 123 (2013). 11 On February 6, 2012, Petitioner filed his state habeas petition. In re Jorge Contreras on 12 Habeas Corpus, California Supreme Court Case No. S199915. On October 9, 2019, the 13 California Supreme Court summarily denied the petition on the merits. Id. 14 On October 28, 2019, Petitioner began this federal habeas proceeding pursuant to 28 15 U.S.C. § 2254 by filing pro se requests for in forma pauperis status and appointment of counsel. 16 (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) The Court adopted the recommendation of the Selection Board for the 17 Eastern District of California, and on December 9, 2019 appointed Brian Pomerantz, Esq. and 18 Ken Murray, Esq. to represent Petitioner in this proceeding. (ECF No. 12.) 19 On February 14, 2020, Respondent lodged the state court record. (ECF Nos. 21-26.) The 20 Court, in response to Petitioner’s assertion the lodged record was insufficient, twice ordered the 21 parties to meet and confer regarding the record lodged by Respondent and Petitioner’s proffered 22 revisions to portions of the lodged Reporter’s Transcript (the latter hereinafter referred to as the 23 “Revised Reporter’s Transcript”). (See ECF No. 31, at 1-2 citing L. R. 191(h)(1-2); ECF No. 24 42, at 2-3; see also ECF No. 41 and Exhibits 1-3 thereto.) Thereupon, the parties agreed that 25 Respondent would re-lodge the record including a revised Reporter’s Transcript. (ECF No. 43, 26 at 2.) 27 On February 26, 2020, the Court tolled the 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) petition filing deadline 1 federal habeas counsel. (See ECF Nos. 12, 18, 27, 31.) 2 On July 23, 2020, Respondent filed an Amended Notice of Lodging of the Record and 3 Second Amended Index of the Record, including a revised Reporter’s Transcript. (ECF Nos. 44- 4 48.) 5 The Court twice granted further equitable tolling of the habeas petition deadline based 6 upon Petitioner’s ongoing reasonable diligence and continuing impacts of the ongoing COVID- 7 19 pandemic then before the Court, such that the federal petition is due December 9, 2021. (ECF 8 Nos. 59 & 74.) 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 Petitioner requests the Court overrule in-part the Magistrate Judge’s May 26, 2021 order 11 to the extent it denies recognition of his proffered Revised Reporter’s Transcript as the operative 12 transcript, and adopt the Revised Reporter’s Transcript as operative for this proceeding. As 13 grounds for reconsideration, Petitioner argues that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling “will cause 14 unnecessary work by counsel for both parties, and the implementation of Petitioner’s requested 15 relief would make the case review easier for this Court and those that follow.” (ECF No. 75, at 16 2.) 17 A district court may refer pretrial issues to a magistrate judge to either hear and decide or 18 issue findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Khrapunov v. Prosyankin, 931 F.3d 19 922, 930-31 (9th Cir. 2019); Bhan v. NME Hosps., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). If 20 a party objects to a nondispositive pretrial ruling by a magistrate judge, the district court will 21 review or reconsider the ruling under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. 28 22 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a);3 Khrapunov, 931 F.3d, at 931; Grimes v. City of 23 San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240-41 (9th Cir. 1991); see also L. R. 303(f). 24 A magistrate judge's factual findings or discretionary decisions are “clearly erroneous” 25 when the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 26 3 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply in habeas corpus proceedings “to the extent that they are not 27 inconsistent with any statutory provisions or [the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases].” Rule 12, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(4). 1 committed. Security Farms v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999, 1014 (9th Cir. 2 1997); Avalos v. Foster Poultry Farms, 798 F.Supp.2d 1156, 1160 (E.D. Cal. 2011). This 3 standard is significantly deferential, parties seeking to overturn the ruling of a magistrate judge 4 bear a heavy burden. Security Farms, 124 F.3d, at 1014; Avalos, 798 F.Supp.2d, at 1160; 5 Dochniak v. Dominium Management Services, Inc., 240 F.R.D. 451, 452 (D. Minn. 2006); 6 Citicorp. v. Interbank Card Ass'n, 87 F.R.D. 43, 46 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). The district court “may not 7 simply substitute its judgment for that of the deciding court.” Grimes, 951 F.2d, at 241; Avalos, 8 798 F.Supp.2d, at 1160. 9 The “contrary to law” standard allows independent, plenary review of purely legal 10 determinations by the magistrate judge. PowerShare, Inc. v. Syntel, Inc., 597 F.3d 10, 15 (1st 11 Cir. 2010); Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3d Cir. 1992); Avalos, 798 12 F.Supp.2d, at 1160; Jadwin v. County of Kern, 767 F.Supp.2d 1069, 1110-11 (E.D. Cal. 2011). 13 “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or 14 rules of procedure.” Calderon v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 290 F.R.D. 508, 511 (D. Idaho 15 2013); Jadwin, 767 F.Supp.2d, at 1111. 16 The district court has the authority to reconsider any aspect of a magistrate judge's pre- 17 trial order. Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Ctrs., Inc., 577 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir. 2009); Allen v. 18 Sybase, Inc., 468 F.3d 642, 658 (10th Cir. 2006); Cole v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. 19 of Idaho, 366 F.3d 813, 823 n.14 (9th Cir. 2004). 20 Here, Petitioner has provided no sufficient basis for the undesigned to conclude that the 21 Magistrate Judge’s May 26, 2021 order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The record 22 reflects the Magistrate Judge considered Petitioner’s argument on the motion below, revisited in 23 the instant reconsideration motion, that the Revised Reporter’s Transcript is superior in form and 24 content to the version included with Respondent’s Amended Notice of Lodging. (ECF No. 72, at 25 4.) The Magistrate Judge considered Petitioner’s concession that any lodging of the Revised 26 Reporter’s Transcript is within the purview of Respondent. (Id.) The Magistrate Judge 27 considered Respondent’s non-opposition to recognizing the Revised Reporter’s Transcript as the 1 | 2.) 2 The Magistrate Judge did not err in finding that Respondent, notwithstanding his 3 | apparent agreement the Revised Reporter’s Transcript is complete, legible, and chronologically 4 | correct, failed to amend the state record and state record index by filing a Notice of Lodging and 5 | lodging the Revised Reporter’s Transcript, in the manner required by Eastern District of 6 | California Local Rules and case management orders in this proceeding. (ECF No. 72, at 5-6, 7 | citing ECF No. 14, at 2, ECF No. 20, at 2-3; see also L. R. 191(h)(1).) 8 The Magistrate Judge properly determined that Respondent shall amend the state record 9 | and state record index by filing a Notice of Lodging and lodging the Revised Reporter’s 10 | Transcript. CECF No. 72, at 5-6.) 11 Nothing before the undersigned suggests, on deferential review, that the Magistrate Judge 12 | was mistaken in his noted factual findings and discretionary decisions, or that he failed to apply 13 | or misapplied relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure. Petitioner’s merely precatory 14 | reconsideration request, unsupported by factual or legal analysis, falls short of his burden on 15 | reconsideration. 16 Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 75) is DENIED. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | Dated: _July 28, 2021 —. 7 LZ : 7 Cb ed — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28