Mark A Harris v. Michael D McDonald, No. 2:2011cv07519 - Document 83 (C.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge James V. Selna for Report and Recommendation (Issued), 79 . Having made a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. (See Order for details) (bem)

Download PDF
Mark A Harris v. Michael D McDonald Doc. 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK A. HARRIS, 12 13 14 15 Petitioner, v. WARREN L. MONTGOMERY, Warden, Respondent. 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 11-7519-JVS (JPR) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the 18 Petition, all the records and files herein, and the Report and 19 Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge. 20 On September 15, 2016, Petitioner filed objections to the 21 Report and Recommendation and a request for a certificate of 22 appealability. For the most part Petitioner simply repeats 23 arguments from his Petition and Reply. Moreover, almost all of 24 Petitioner’s objections to the R. & R. rest on his assertion that 25 the Magistrate Judge, like the state courts, “ignored” critical 26 evidence, in the form of his mother’s and his own declarations, 27 of a whole host of “facts” allegedly showing that had he been 28 advised of the correct parole term he would not have pleaded 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 guilty. (See, e.g., Objs. at 12-13.) But the Magistrate Judge 2 in fact discussed Petitioner’s and his mother’s declarations at 3 length (R. & R. at 14-16; see also Lodged Doc. 5 at 1-2 (state 4 superior court discussing Petitioner’s “exhibits,” including 5 declarations); she simply concluded, correctly, that the state 6 court was not objectively unreasonable in finding Petitioner’s 7 assertions “wholly unbelievable” because by entering a guilty 8 plea he shaved 20 years off his sentence and prevented his 9 grandmother from having to testify, which he acknowledged was 10 important to him and his family (see R. & R. at 17-20, 24). 11 Petitioner also argues, as he did in his Petition, that his 12 claims should be reviewed de novo, not with AEDPA deference. 13 (See generally Objs.) He is incorrect. (See R. & R. at 6-7.) 14 As to Petitioner’s specific objection that the Magistrate Judge 15 improperly applied the look-through doctrine to review the 16 superior court’s decision (Objs. at 6), she did not: although the 17 state supreme court indicated that it was denying all of 18 Petitioner’s claims “on the merits” (Lodged Doc. 9), because its 19 decision included no analysis, the Magistrate Judge properly 20 looked to the last reasoned decision, that of the superior court. 21 Having made a de novo determination of those portions of the 22 Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made, the 23 Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate 24 Judge. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying 25 the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. 26 27 DATED: 28 October 14, 2016 JAMES V. SELNA U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.