Dumlao v. Cates
3:13-cv-01190
S.D. Cal.Mar 28, 2016Background
- Petitioner Romeo Balbin Dumlao, Jr., a state prisoner pro se, challenged his June 10, 2010 conviction for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and related great-bodily-injury sentencing enhancements via a first amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition.
- Petitioner also sought an evidentiary hearing and leave to conduct discovery in support of his habeas claims.
- The matters were referred to Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) concluding all requested relief should be denied.
- Petitioner filed objections to the R&R; the district court reviewed those objections de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72.
- The district court overruled Petitioner’s objections, adopted the R&R in full, denied the habeas petition with prejudice, denied the motions for an evidentiary hearing and discovery, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
- The court noted (in a footnote) the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Cook regarding inapplicability of great-bodily-injury enhancements to murder/manslaughter and stated Petitioner may seek state habeas relief on that ground.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Petitioner is entitled to federal habeas relief on his claims | Dumlao argued trial errors and related constitutional violations entitle him to relief | Respondent argued Petitioner’s claims lack merit and do not warrant habeas relief | Court denied the § 2254 petition with prejudice; R&R adopted |
| Entitlement to an evidentiary hearing | Dumlao requested an evidentiary hearing to develop facts supporting his claims | Respondent opposed further fact development as unnecessary and unwarranted | Court denied the request for an evidentiary hearing |
| Request for discovery | Dumlao sought discovery to support his habeas allegations | Respondent opposed discovery as unnecessary and unsupported | Court denied the request for discovery |
| Certificate of appealability (COA) | Implicitly, Dumlao sought permission to appeal if petition denied | Respondent opposed issuing a COA | Court declined to issue a COA, finding reasonable jurists would not debate the result |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for when reasonable jurists could debate resolution of habeas claims)
- United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1989) (standard for district court’s review of magistrate judge recommendations)
- People v. Cook, 60 Cal.4th 922 (2015) (California Supreme Court holding that great-bodily-injury enhancements do not apply to murder or manslaughter)
- In re Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750 (1993) (requirements for justifying failure to raise claims earlier in state proceedings)