Potts v. Beard

Full title: DENNIS MICKJALE POTTS, Petitioner, v. JEFFREY BEARD, Secretary, Respondent.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Civil No. 13-0568 DMS (JLB)

Date published: Aug 7, 2014

Fact:

Petitioner Dennis Mickjale Potts, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenges his conviction in San Diego County Superior Court Case No. SCD211145 for two counts of first degree special circumstances murder and one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice. (Pet. at 4-6, 10-62 ECF No. 1.) The Court has reviewed the Petition, the Answer and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the  Answer, the Traverse, the lodgments, the record, and all the supporting documents submitted by both parties. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the request for appointment of counsel, and recommends the Petition and the request for an evidentiary hearing be DENIED.

Issue:

CONCLUSION:

The Court submits this Report and Recommendation to United States District Judge Dana M. Sabraw under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 72.1(d)(4) of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. For the reasons outlined above, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel.

In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an order: (1) approving and adopting this Report and Recommendation, and (2) directing that Judgment be entered DENYING the request for an evidentiary hearing and DENYING Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

IT IS ORDERED that no later than August 29, 2014 any party to this action may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than September 19, 2014. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to  raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

three + 19 =