Kevin Liu v. Daniel Paramo, No. 2:2017cv07465 - Document 53 (C.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 43 by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. (es)

Download PDF

Kevin Liu v. Daniel Paramo Doc. 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN LIU, 12 Petitioner, 13 v. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MARCUS POLLARD, Warden, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 17-7465-SB (JPR) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE The Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge. On July 8, 2020, Petitioner filed Objections to the R. & R., in which he mostly repeats arguments from his Petition and Traverse. In light of his complaint that because of the COVID-19 pandemic he had limited law-library access while preparing the Objections (see Objs. at 1-2), the Magistrate Judge sua sponte granted him additional time to file supplemental objections and then granted his two requests for a further extension. On October 14, 2020, Petitioner filed Supplemental Objections, in which he primarily 27 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 reiterates the arguments raised in his Objections. 1 2 has not responded to the Objections or Supplemental Objections. 3 Although he mostly spends his time discussing their merits Respondent 4 (see id. at 3-5), Petitioner also seems to contend that the 5 Magistrate Judge erred in finding grounds one through three and 6 six procedurally defaulted (id. at 2-5). 7 argues that the Petition’s claims were “presented in a timely 8 manner” to the state courts. 9 Judge recognized as to claims one through three, and as the (Id. at 2.) Specifically, he But as the Magistrate 10 Court previously found (see Aug. 31, 2018 R. & R. at 6-8; Oct. 11 10, 2018 Order Accepting R. & R.), the claims were barred 12 because they should have been raised on direct appeal, not 13 because they were untimely, and the Magistrate Judge rightly 14 rejected Petitioner’s argument that his appellate attorney’s 15 ineffectiveness excused his procedural default because that 16 claim, which was previously dismissed from the Petition, was 17 unexhausted (see R. & R. at 23-24). 18 19 Petitioner also asserts that his procedural default should be excused because there was “no remedy [to be] found within the 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Error! Main Document Only.Petitioner still maintains that he has been denied law-library access (Suppl. Objs. at 6), and he emphasizes that he has “limited knowledge and understanding” of English and no “knowledge and understanding of the legal procedures and processes” (id. at 7). But he did not request additional time to file his Supplemental Objections, and his burden to establish entitlement to federal habeas relief is not lessened by his pro se status. To the extent he claims he received ineffective assistance from a fellow inmate in preparing his Objections and Supplemental Objections (see id. at 6-8), there is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987). 1 2 1 state’s courts,” suggesting that they would be reluctant to ever 2 find prosecutorial misconduct. 3 4.) 4 believes it may find favor in the federal courts, he may not 5 bypass the state courts simply because he thinks they will be 6 unsympathetic to the claim.” 7 (1982) (rejecting argument that “cause” excusing procedural 8 default was shown when raising claim in state court would have 9 been futile). (See Objs. at 4; Suppl. Objs. at But “[i]f a defendant perceives a constitutional claim and Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 130 Because Petitioner has failed to show that his 10 default was excused by cause or actual prejudice, the Magistrate 11 Judge didn’t err by not addressing grounds one through three and 12 six on the merits. 13 (See Objs. at 6.) Having reviewed de novo those portions of the R. & R. to 14 which Petitioner objects, the Court agrees with and accepts the 15 findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 16 THEREFORE IS ORDERED that judgment be entered denying the 17 Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. IT 18 19 20 21 22 DATED: November 23, 2020 STANLEY BLUMENFELD, JR. U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.