Daniel Merino v. Jeffery Beard, No. 2:2013cv08616 - Document 80 (C.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Virginia A. Phillips for Report and Recommendation (Issued), 74 . Having reviewed de novo those portions of the R. & R. to which Petitioner objected, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the Petition be denied and Judgment be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. (See Order for details) (bem)

Download PDF
Daniel Merino v. Jeffery Beard Doc. 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 DANIEL MERINO, 10 Petitioner, 11 v. 12 SHAWN HATTON, Warden, 13 Respondent. 14 15 ) Case No. CV 13-8616-VAP (JPR) ) ) ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE ) ) ) ) The Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and 16 Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge. See 28 17 U.S.C. § 636. On January 5, 2018, Petitioner filed Objections to 18 the R. & R., mostly just repeating arguments from the Petition 19 and Reply. 20 In the R. & R., the Magistrate Judge pointed out that 21 Petitioner had never submitted a declaration of counsel to 22 support his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim or stated 23 that he tried to get one and counsel wouldn’t cooperate. (See R. 24 & R. at 14-15.) In his Objections, Petitioner seems to confirm 25 that he never approached counsel for a declaration: 26 [I]t is impossible to have defendant’s lawyers from trial 27 answer any of the letters because a declaration will 28 certainly incriminate their jobs and put their careers in question. This is why Petitioner appeals to this court Dockets.Justia.com 1 to review the fact that a map exists and since the court 2 has the ability to get a copy faster than Petitioner 3 would be able to do. 4 (Objs. at 3.)1 But even if he did try to get a declaration and 5 was unable to do so, the Magistrate Judge fully explained why he 6 nonetheless was not entitled to relief. 7 (See R. & R. at 15-17.) Having reviewed de novo those portions of the R. & R. to 8 which Petitioner objected, the Court accepts the findings and 9 recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED 10 that the Petition be denied and Judgment be entered dismissing 11 this action with prejudice. 12 13 14 DATED: January 23, 2018 VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS C U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 Petitioner states that he tried to get a copy of the map 24 from the District Attorney, but she “refuse[d] to answer.” (Objs. at 3.) But Petitioner’s letter to the D.A. asked for the 25 “exhibit list” from trial as well as “[t]he exhibit list before the exhibits were argued to be admitted into evidence.” (See 26 Objs., Ex. A.) As the Court understands it, Petitioner’s counsel 27 never contemplated trying to introduce the map into evidence 28 because he believed he couldn’t lay a foundation for it (see R. & R. at 15-16), so Petitioner’s request did not cover the map in any event. 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.