James Smith v. Ron Broomfield, No. 2:2021cv04531 - Document 16 (C.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew for NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support 9 , Report and Recommendation (Issued), 12 IT IS ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is accepted and adopted; and (2) Judgment shall be entered granting Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and dismissing this action with prejudice. (es)

Download PDF
James Smith v. Ron Broomfield Doc. 16 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES SMITH, 12 13 Case No. 2:21-cv-04531-RSWL (MAA) Petitioner, v. 14 RON BROOMFIELD, Warden, 15 Respondent. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the other 18 records on file herein, and the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the 19 United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review 20 of those portions of the Report to which objections have been made. For the 21 following reasons, Petitioner’s Objections (ECF No. 15) are unpersuasive. 22 Petitioner objects that the Report was “an unreasonable application of clearly 23 established case law from finding Petitioner to be [a] 20 year old adult at the time 24 of the crime in one breath, and, in another breath, finding that California law 25 defines any person under 26 years of age as [a] “Youth Offender.” (ECF No. 15 at 26 1.) As the Report stated, however, United States Supreme Court precedent, which 27 constitutes clearly established federal law, sets the relevant age at 18 years. (ECF 28 No. 12 at 12 n.3 (citing Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 465 (2012).) Dockets.Justia.com 1 Petitioner objects that the denial of parole has resulted in him serving 37 2 years in prison, which is a constitutionally excessive sentence. (ECF No. 15 at 3- 3 4.) As the Report stated, however, the denial of parole does not “transform a 4 lawfully-imposed indeterminate sentence into a sentence that constitutes cruel and 5 unusual punishment.” (ECF No. 12 at 10-11 (collecting cases).) 6 Petitioner objects that he “has stated a prima facie case based upon the 7 amount of time he has already served is excessive and amounts to cruel and unusual 8 punishment with the comparison of all fifty (50) states for a 20 year youth offender 9 at the time of the crime.” (ECF No. 15 at 5.) As the Report stated, however, 10 Petitioner’s sentence did not raise an inference of gross disproportionality. (ECF 11 No. 12 at 11-12.) It follows that comparisons with other jurisdictions is not 12 constitutionally required. See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1005 (1991) 13 (“A better reading of our cases leads to the conclusion that intrajurisdictional and 14 interjurisdictional analyses are appropriate only in the rare case in which a 15 threshold comparison of the crime committed and the sentence imposed leads to an 16 inference of gross disproportionality.”) (conc. op. of Kennedy, J.); Taylor v. Miles, 17 747 F. App’x 601, 602 (9th Cir. 2019) (“Because we do not find an inference of 18 gross disproportionality, an intra- and inter-jurisdictional comparison of sentences 19 is not required.”). 20 IT IS ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 21 Judge is accepted and adopted; and (2) Judgment shall be entered granting 22 Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and dismissing this action with prejudice. 23 24 DATED: May 3, 2022 25 26 27 ______/S/ RONALD S.W. LEW_________ RONALD S.W. LEW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 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.