Ricardo Carranzo Perez v. Domingo Uribe, Jr., No. 5:2011cv01833 - Document 28 (C.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Andrew J. Guilford for Report and Recommendation 22 : (See document for details.) IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that (1) the Petition is DENIED without leave to amend; (2) Petitioner's requests for an evidentiary hearing and appointment of counsel are DENIED; and (3) Judgment be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. (rla)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ricardo Carranzo Perez v. Domingo Uribe, Jr. 1 Doc. 28 2 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS SERVED BY • • FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID, TO·All BSI:HdSEt '\'-c\ "'l-«"' (Oili'AR+Iffi) AT THEIR RESPECTIVE MOST RECENT ADDRESS OF RECORD IN THIS ACTION ON THIS DATE. 3 DATED: 4 DEPUTY CLERK FILED • SOUTHERN CLERK, US DISTRICT COURl ·+c \\ ' 2.- • \ 1- NOV - 2 2012 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RICARDO CARRANZO PEREZ, 10 Petitioner, 11 12 )Case No. EDCV 11-1833-AG (JPR) ) vs. DOMINGO URIBE, JR., Warden, ) )ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND )RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. )MAGISTRATE JUDGE ) ) 13 Respondent. 14 ) ) 15 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed de novo 16 the Petition, records on file, and Report and Recommendation of 17 the 18 filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation, in which he 19 mostly simply reargues his claims. 20 Petitioner argues that the Magistrate Judge erred when she 21 described the California Supreme Court as having "summarily 22 denied" his Petition for Review because "[t]hat would mean that 23 the California Supreme Court actually read" the petition and 24 "concluded" that it "had no merit." 25 Petitioner claims, the state supreme court did not actually 26 review the petition, he asks that this Court "order the 27 California Supreme Court to Review this Petition on it's own 28 merits as the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution u.s. Magistrate Judge. On September 17, 2012, Petitioner In addition, however, (Objections at 4.) Because, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 allows." (Id.) Petitioner seems to misunderstand the Magistrate Judge's use 3 of the term "summary denial." 4 judgment" and argues that it necessarily means a determination on 5 the merits. 6 7 8 9 simply without explanation of any kind. (Id.) He equates it to "summary In context, however, "summary denial" means The Magistrate Judge understood that "under California law, the state supreme court's discretionary denial of a petition for review is decidedly not a decision on the merits," see Williams v. Cavazos, 646 F.3d 626, 10 636 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. granted, 132 S. Ct. 1088 (U.S. Jan. 11 13, 2012) 12 through" doctrine (see Rep. & Rec. at 2). 13 (No. 11-465), which is why she applied the "look Having made a de novo determination of those portions of the 14 Report and Recommendation to which Petitioner has filed 15 Objections, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations of 16 the Magistrate Judge. 17 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that (1) the Petition is DENIED 18 without leave to amend; 19 evidentiary hearing and appointment of counsel are DENIED; and 20 (3) Judgment be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. (2) Petitioner's requests for an 21 22 23 24 DATED: October 31, 2012 ANDREW J. GUILFORD U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 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.
