Opinion
Case No. EDCV 16-1992-RSWL (JPR)
01-24-2018
GARY MICHAEL GALLION, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL SEXTON, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge. On December 29, 2017, Petitioner filed objections to the R. & R., in which he mostly simply repeats arguments from his Petition and Traverse. A few of his contentions warrant brief discussion, however.
The Magistrate Judge did not "misconstrue" Petitioner's void-for-vagueness argument (see Objs. at 2); she discussed at length why the Supreme Court's decision in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983), could not provide Petitioner any relief (see R. & R. at 17-21), and she explained that a federal habeas court is bound by a state court's interpretation of its own law (see id. at 17), and thus his Andreasen argument must fail (see Objs. at 3-4).
People v. Andreasen, 214 Cal. App. 4th 70, 79 (Ct. App. 2013). --------
Petitioner continues not to explain how he was prejudiced by any ineffective assistance of counsel: for instance, he still does not name the witnesses his counsel allegedly should have called (see Objs. at 5-6) despite the Magistrate Judge's noting that that failure was fatal to his claim (see R. & R. at 25). And he does not offer any evidence — or, more importantly, point to any such evidence already in the record — demonstrating that any member of the jury was exposed to potentially inflammatory trial coverage in the media. (See Objs. at 7-8.)
Having made a de novo review of all portions of the R. & R. to which Petitioner objected, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the Petition is denied and Judgment be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. DATED: 1/24/2018
s/ RONALD S.W. LEW
RONALD S.W. LEW
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE