Isaac Michael Castillo v. Robinson, No. 5:2020cv00346 - Document 18 (C.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 by Judge James V. Selna. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. (es)

Download PDF
Isaac Michael Castillo v. Robinson Doc. 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISAAC MICHAEL CASTILLO, Petitioner, 12 13 14 v. JAMES ROBERTSON, Warden, Respondent. 15 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. EDCV 20-0346-JVS (JPR) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE The Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and 18 Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge, which 19 recommends that judgment be entered denying the Petition and 20 dismissing this action with prejudice. 21 § 636(b)(1). 22 the R. & R., in which he mostly simply repeats arguments from his 23 Petition and Traverse; Respondent did not file a response. 24 See 28 U.S.C. On April 26, 2021, Petitioner filed Objections to Petitioner doesn’t object at all to the Magistrate Judge’s 25 findings that the state court reasonably denied his claim that 26 insufficient evidence supported his criminal-threats conviction 27 (see R. & R. at 32-38) and that his unexhausted ineffective- 28 assistance-of-counsel and sentencing claims aren’t even colorable 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 and should therefore be denied on the merits (see id. at 38-45). 2 He continues to argue, however, that his first-degree-murder 3 conviction was based on insufficient evidence, insisting that the 4 sole eyewitness’s testimony was unreliable or supported his 5 innocence. 6 testimony of a single witness can be sufficient to prove a 7 disputed fact (see id. at 3), and for the reasons discussed in 8 the R. & R. (see R. & R. at 25-31), the eyewitness’s 9 identification testimony was sufficient to establish Petitioner’s (See Objs. at 2-5.) But he concedes that the 10 identity as the shooter and was amply corroborated by other 11 evidence. 12 evidentiary weaknesses Petitioner highlights, including those 13 involving the lineup1 (see Objs. at 3-5), were presented to the 14 jury, which nevertheless found that he was the shooter (see R. & 15 R. at 29-31). 16 And as the Magistrate Judge also recognized, the Having reviewed de novo those portions of the R. & R. to 17 which Petitioner objects, the Court agrees with and accepts the 18 findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 19 THEREFORE IS ORDERED that judgment be entered denying the 20 Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. IT 21 22 DATED: May 20, 2021 JAMES V. SELNA U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 1 25 26 27 28 Despite Petitioner’s insistence that the lineup was “faulty” (Objs. at 3), the Magistrate Judge correctly noted that he never raised a separate claim that the lineup was constitutionally deficient and that a reviewing court considering the evidence’s sufficiency must consider all the evidence, properly admitted or not (see R. & R. at 29 n.6 (citing McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120, 131 (2010)). 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.