Stroud v. Neuschmid ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COLERIDGE B. STROUD, Case No.: 19-CV-924 JLS (WVG) 12 Petitioner, ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION, (2) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT 14 ROBERT NEUSCHMID, Warden, OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND 15 Respondent. (3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 16 17 (ECF Nos. 1, 13) 18 19 Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo’s Report and 20 Recommendation (“R&R,” ECF No. 13). Magistrate Judge Gallo recommends that the 21 Court deny Petitioner Coleridge Stroud’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1). 22 Petitioner did not object to the R&R. Having considered Magistrate Judge Gallo’s R&R, 23 the Parties’ arguments, and the law, the Court rules as follows. 24 BACKGROUND 25 Magistrate Judge Gallo’s R&R contains a complete and accurate recitation of the 26 relevant factual and procedural histories underlying the Petition. See R&R at 1–4. This 27 Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein. 28 /// 1 LEGAL STANDARD 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 3 court’s duties regarding a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district court 4 “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection 5 is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 6 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); see also 7 United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980). In the absence of a timely 8 objection, however, “the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the 9 face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory 10 committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 510 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)). 11 ANALYSIS 12 Petitioner, who in 2015 pled guilty to carjacking, kidnapping, robbery, reckless 13 evading of police, and misdemeanor sexual battery, see R&R at 2, and “admitted that he 14 was out on bail at the time of these offenses, [and] that he had one serious prior felony 15 conviction and two prior strike convictions,” id. (citations omitted), raises two grounds for 16 relief in his Petition. 17 First, Petitioner challenges “his sentence under California’s ‘Three Strikes Law,’ 18 Cal. Pen. Code § 667, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his 19 motion to strike his prior ‘strikes’ under People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal. 4th 20 497 (1996).” R&R at 1. Magistrate Judge Gallo determined this “claim provides no basis 21 that allows issuance of the writ” because “Petitioner’s claim of an abuse of Romero 22 discretion is fundamentally a question of California law and fails to satisfy the requirement 23 of § 2254(d)(1) as ‘contrary to’ any federal law or constitutional mandate subject to federal 24 habeas review.” Id. at 5. 25 Second, Petitioner argues his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment because it 26 was “disproportionate to other sentences for the closely related conditions.” Id. at 6. 27 Magistrate Judge Gallo concluded that “[t]his is not the ‘extraordinary case’ that amounts 28 to a constitutional violation” because, based on the record, “the California courts did not 1 unreasonably apply clearly established federal law.” Id. at 7. Judge Gallo therefore found 2 “no disproportionate punishment basis under the California trial court’s sentence that 3 warrants habeas review.” Id. 4 Because Petitioner failed timely to object to Magistrate Judge Gallo’s R&R, see 5 R&R at 8 (directing that any objections be filed by December 17, 2020), the Court reviews 6 the R&R for clear error. The Court finds that the R&R is well reasoned and contains no 7 clear error. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS in its entirety Magistrate Judge Gallo’s R&R 8 (ECF No. 13) and DENIES the Petition (ECF No. 1). 9 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 10 The Court also is obliged to determine whether to issue a COA in this proceeding. 11 A COA is authorized “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 12 constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “Where a district court has rejected the 13 constitutional claims on the merits, . . . [t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable 14 jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or 15 wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). When “the district court denies a 16 habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying 17 constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of 18 reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 19 constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district 20 court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. 21 Because the Court finds that no reasonable jurist would find it debatable whether the 22 Court was correct in its determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus 23 relief, the questions presented by the Petition do not warrant further proceedings. 24 Accordingly, the Court DENIES a COA. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 CONCLUSION 2 In light of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Gallo’s R&R in its 3 entirety (ECF No. 13), DENIES the Petition (ECF No. 1), and DENIES a certificate of 4 ||appealability. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court SHALL ENTER Judgment denying the 5 || Petition and SHALL CLOSE the file. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||Dated: August 18, 2020 . tt 8 jen Janis L. Sammartino 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28