Gregory Bernard Lacy v. J. A. Lizarraga, No. 5:2019cv00583 - Document 41 (C.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. For the reasons set forth by the Magistrate Judge, that standard has been met with respect to all counts of conviction. Accordingly, the Petition is GRANTED. This matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court of Riverside County for retrial on Counts 1 through 6. Report and Recommendation (Issued) - Granting 2254 Petition, 38 [SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.] (es)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gregory Bernard Lacy v. J. A. Lizarraga Doc. 41 1 2 3 O 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY BERNARD LACY, Petitioner, 12 ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND 13 v. 14 J.A. LIZARRAGA, Warden, 15 Case No. 5:19-cv-00583-DDP (KES) Respondent. 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 of the United States 19 Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those 20 portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. 21 The Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 22 Respondent objects that, with respect to Counts 4, 5, and 6, Petitioner has not 23 shown prejudice from the constitutional errors described in the Report and 24 Recommendation. (See Dkt. 39 at 5, 14.) On collateral review, however, Respondent 25 has the burden to show harmlessness. See Mays v. Clark, 807 F.3d 968, 980 (9th 26 Cir. 2015). Furthermore, Respondent did not raise this issue before the Magistrate 27 Judge or file any response to Petitioner’s supplemental memorandum, and thus has 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 waived the harmless error argument. See Greenhow v. Secretary of Health & Human 2 Services, 863 F.2d 633, 638-39 (9th Cir. 1988), overruled on other grounds by United 3 States v. Hardesty, 977 F.2d 1347, 1348 (9th Cir. 1992) (en banc) (“We do not believe 4 that the Magistrate Act was intended to give litigants an opportunity to run one 5 version of their case past the magistrate, then another past the district court.”); 6 (Rhodes v. Dittmann, 903 F.3d 646, 664 (7th Cir. 2018) (discussing government’s 7 waiver of harmless error issue). 8 “[R]elief is proper only if the federal court has ‘grave doubt about whether a 9 trial error of federal law had substantial and injurious effect or influence in 10 determining the jury's verdict.’” Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257, 267–68 (2015), 11 quoting O'Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 436 (1995) (internal quotation marks 12 omitted). For the reasons set forth by the Magistrate Judge, that standard has been 13 met with respect to all counts of conviction. Accordingly, the Petition is GRANTED. 14 This matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court of Riverside County for retrial on 15 Counts 1 through 6. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 20 21 22 23 October 26, 2021 DATED: ___________________ ____________________________________ Dean D. Pregerson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 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.
