Opinion
2:21-cv-03869-JDW
01-25-2024
CHESTER BRAME, Petitioner, v. MARK WAHL, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
JOSHUA D. WOLSON, J.
AND NOW, this 25th day of January, 2024, upon consideration of the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 For Writ Of Habeas Corpus By A Person In State Custody (ECF No. 1), and following careful and independent review of the Honorable Jose R. Arteaga's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21), without timely Opposition from the pro se Petitioner, for good cause including finding (a) that Mr. Brame's claims regarding the state trial court's denial of his suppression motion are non-cognizable and lack merit, and (b) Mr. Brame's sufficiency of the evidence claim is unexhausted and procedurally defaulted, it is ORDERED as follows:
On December 7, 2023, Mr. Brame filed a separate habeas petition under docket number 23-cv-04864. That petition challenges same conviction as the one at-issue here. However, Mr. Brame raises new grounds that do not overlap with his claims in his Petition in the instant case. Accordingly, I do not construe that petition as raising timely objections to Judge Arteaga's Report and Recommendation.
1. Judge Arteaga's detailed Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21) is APPROVED and ADOPTED; and
2. The Court DENIES and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the Petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1).
I find that there is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability because Mr. Brame has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists would debate the correctness of the procedural aspects of this ruling, nor has he made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
The Clerk of Court shall mark this case closed for statistical purposes.