Ezzard Charles Ellis v. C M Harrison, No. 5:2005cv00520 - Document 91 (C.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 85 AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY by Judge S. James Otero. IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied; (2) Judgment shall be entered dismissing the action with prejudice; and (3) a Certificate of Appealability is denied. (See Order for Further Details) (kl)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ezzard Charles Ellis v. C M Harrison Doc. 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 EZZARD CHARLES ELLIS, 12 13 14 15 Petitioner, v. C.M. HARRISON, Respondent. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. EDCV 05-0520 SJO (JEM) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings, the 18 records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate 19 Judge. Petitioner, through his counsel at the Federal Public Defender's Office, has filed 20 Objections to the Court's April 19, 2016 Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), which 21 recommends denial of the pending habeas petition and dismissal of this case. (See Docket 22 Nos. 85 (R&R) and 90 (Objections).) The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those 23 portions of the R&R to which Petitioner has objected. 24 25 Notwithstanding Petitioner’s Objections, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 26 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS The gravamen of the Objections is that the R&R mistakenly analyzed Petitioner's 3 primary ground for relief, Claim One(a) of the Petition. Petitioner states that "Claim 4 One(a) [ ] alleges that he was deprived of his right under the Sixth Amendment to the 5 effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel's deep racial prejudice against his 6 client created an actual conflict of interest." (Objections at 1.) Petitioner goes on to state 7 that "[t]o give an African-American defendant a legal defender who harbors nothing but 8 ‘deep and utter contempt for African Americans’ . . . is to subvert the rules of justice as they 9 stood at the time of [Petitioner's] conviction." (Objections at 6, citing Mayfield v. Woodford, 10 270 F.3d 915, 939 (9th Cir. 2001) (Graber, J., dissenting).) Petitioner also states that he is 11 "not trying prove his actual innocence; he [is] trying to prove he had received an unfair trial 12 because his counsel's racism placed him in conflict with his African-American client." 13 (Objections at 7.) 14 The Court construes the Objections essentially to raise five issues: 15 (1) The "Factual Background" of the R&R improperly included the Magistrate Judge's 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 own review of the record in addition to facts explicitly found by the California state courts; (2) The R&R failed to determine whether AEDPA's deferential standard of review should apply to review of Claim One(a), or whether it should be reviewed de novo; (3) The R&R improperly "conflated" its review of Claim One(a) under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), with the standard of review set forth at 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); (4) The R&R improperly determined that habeas relief on Claim One(a) would necessitate creation of a "new rule" that would contravene Teague; and 23 (5) Petitioner is entitled a Certificate of Appealability. 24 Petitioner argues that "[b]ecause [Petitioner] has shown that 28 U.S.C. § 2254 does 25 not apply to his claim [Claim One(a)] – or alternatively, that its requirements are met – and 26 because he has shown that the applicable law is retroactive under sufficient federal 27 28 2 1 precedent, the Report should be rejected and/or amended. Alternatively, because the claim 2 is at least debatable among jurists of reason, this Court should issue a certificate of 3 appealability." (Objections at 1-2.) 4 5 DISCUSSION Petitioner's objections to the "Factual Background" are conclusory and unavailing. 6 This case has a long procedural history and, in order to make the various factual summaries 7 from the state courts and the omitted records of pertinent facts coherent and readable, the 8 R&R combined facts that were "found" by the state courts with facts evidenced in the 9 record. Petitioner does not challenge any particular "finding of fact," and the R&R does not 10 rely on any facts set forth in the factual background as "state court findings of fact." The 11 R&R merely summarizes the factual background of the case based on an "independent 12 review" of the record. Because Petitioner does not take issue with any particular "fact" in 13 the R&R, his objections to the factual background are without merit. 14 Contrary to Petitioner's objection that the R&R never ruled on his contention that 15 Claim One(a) should be reviewed de novo because the state courts did not properly 16 adjudicate the claim on the merits, the R&R explicitly found that the state courts had 17 reached the merits of Claim One(a) and, therefore, the claim would be reviewed under the 18 AEDPA standard. (See R&R at 23.) The R&R also noted, at the end of the discussion of 19 the merits of Claim One(a), that even if the claim was reviewed de novo, it must still be 20 denied. (See R&R at 37-38.) 21 Petitioner's complaints that the R&R "conflated" its analysis of the Teague issue and 22 its review under § 2254(d) are conclusory, belied by the R&R, and unavailing in any event. 23 The R&R roughly framed the new "rule" proposed by Petitioner as stating that, where 24 defense counsel has been shown to personally hold racist views, whether expressed to the 25 defendant or not during the course of the representation, a per se conflict of interest would 26 be created that would allow for habeas relief under Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 345 27 28 3 1 (1980), without any need to show that defense counsel was ineffective under the two-prong 2 standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 446 U.S. 668, 690 (1984). The R&R 3 explicitly found that Petitioner's proposed rule would be a "new rule" and would therefore be 4 barred by Teague. (See R&R at 35.) The R&R also found that Claim One(a) must fail 5 under § 2254(d) (see R&R at 35-37) and under de novo review (see R&R at 37-38). 6 Consequently, whatever complaints Petitioner might have about the form or methodology of 7 the R&R, it explicitly made conclusions based on Teague, § 2254(d), and a de novo review 8 of Claim One(a). 9 Petitioner's argument in Ground One(a) – that his case is analogous and should be 10 governed by the standard set forth in Cuyler – is not colorable. There is no doubt that 11 Cuyler cannot be extended to Petitioner's case. 12 13 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, the Court “must 14 issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the 15 applicant.” For the reasons stated in the R&R and herein, the Court concludes that 16 Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, as is 17 required to support the issuance of a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 18 2253(c)(2). 19 20 ORDER IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied; 21 (2) Judgment shall be entered dismissing the action with prejudice; and (3) a Certificate of 22 Appealability is denied. 23 24 DATED: July 26, 2016 S. JAMES OTERO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
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.
