Cuevas v. Kelly ( 2019 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION SANTOS CUEVAS, No. 6:18-CV-01973-JR Petitioner, ORDER v. BRANDON KELLY, Respondent. Santos Cuevas 11207100 Oregon State Penitentiary 2605 State Street Salem, OR 97310-0505 Pro se Petitioner Kristen E. Boyd Oregon Department of Justice Trial Division 1162 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301-4096 Attorney for Respondent HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation [79] on October 23, 2019, in which she recommends that the Court deny Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Petitioner timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge’s report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Petitioner objects to the Findings and Recommendation on numerous grounds, which are more fairly characterized as arguments that his constitutional rights were violated during the grand jury, trial, and post-trial proceedings of his underlying case. Obj. to F&R, ECF 83; Mot. Strike F&R, ECF 81; Mot. Evid. Hrg., ECF 82; Cuevas Aff., ECF 84; Reply Against Dismissal Req., ECF 86; Req. Judicial Not., ECF 87; Mot. Show Cause & Mot. Prelim. Inj., ECF 88. The Court carefully considered Petitioner’s objections and other filings and concludes that Petitioner’s filings do not provide a basis to modify the recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. CONCLUSION The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation [79]. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [1], Motion for Evidentiary Hearing [71], Motion to Modify or Make Defense Available [72], and Motion for Appointment of Counsel [74] are DENIED. The Court also DENIES: (1) Petitioner’s Motion for Order to Show Cause, Issue an Emergency Pre-Injunction, and to Disqualify the Department of Justice [62]; Motion to Strike Response to Habeas Petition (2254) [64]; motion for preliminary injunction titled “Motion for Pre-Injunction and Relief Reinstatement to Protect Class of Victims First Amendment Rights” [70]; Motion to Strike Findings & Recommendation [81]; Motion for Evidentiary Hearing on Subject Matter Jurisdiction [82]; Request for Judicial Notice [87]; and Motion for Order to Show Cause and Motion for Preliminary Injunction [88]. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED:D ecem ber 23 , 2019. MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge