Case Information
*1 Case 2:19-cv-08614-GW-AFM Document 21 Filed 04/16/21 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:2773
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MORRAD M. GHONIM, Case No. 2:19-cv-08614-GW (AFM) Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS v. AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden, JUDGE Respondent.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, and the Amended Report and Recommendation (“Report”) which is identical to the original with the exception of a number of typographical corrections. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which objections have been made. Petitioner’s objections are overruled. With the following exception, Petitioner’s objections do not warrant discussion because they are properly addressed in the Report.
With respect to his claim challenging the admission of Nisreen Alfaleh’s testimony, Petitioner argues that the Report addressed only some of Ms. Alfaleh’s testimony, but failed to consider all of the prejudicial evidence. Specifically, Petitioner points to Ms. Alfaleh’s testimony that Petitioner had engaged in infidelity, *2 Case 2:19-cv-08614-GW-AFM Document 21 Filed 04/16/21 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:2774
had threatened to hurt her if she thought about divorcing him, and had said he would enjoy throwing acid on her face. (ECF No. 19 at 3.)
Contrary to Petitioner’s suggestion, the Report fully summarized the foregoing testimony. ( See ECF No. 18 at 14-15, citing Reporter’s Transcript on Appeal at 1628-1639.) In recommending that Petitioner’s claim be denied, the Report relied on the absence of clearly established federal law, pointing out that the Supreme Court has not clearly held that the admission of irrelevant or overtly prejudicial evidence constitutes a due process violation. (ECF No. 18 at 21, citing Holley v. Yarborough , 568 F.3d 1091, 1101 (9th Cir. 2009).) Thus, the Report correctly concluded that habeas corpus relief is unavailable under the AEDPA. While the Report continued to analyze Petitioner’s claim under Ninth Circuit precedent and specifically addressed the relevance of Ms. Alfaleh’s testimony that Petitioner said it cost him $500 “then,” that analysis was unnecessary in light of the conclusion that the state court’s determination could be neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. Because Petitioner cannot prevail on his claim, the Report’s failure to individually analyze each of the statements about which Petitioner objects is of no consequence.
With the foregoing addition, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that (1) the Amended Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is accepted and adopted; and (2) Judgment shall be entered denying the Petition and dismissing the action with prejudice.
DATED: April 16, 2021
____________________________________ GEORGE H. WU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2