Opinion
1:18-cv-01606-DAD-HBK
09-07-2021
RYANN LYNN JONES, Petitioner, v. DEAN BORDERS, Respondent.
ORDER REFERRING CASE BACK TO THE
NOW-ASSIGNED MAGISTRATE JUDGE
FOR AMENDED OR SUPPLEMENTAL
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. No. 20)
Petitioner Ryann Lynn Jones is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On June 24, 2020, the then-assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the pending petition be denied on its merits. (Doc. No. 20.) Those findings and recommendations were served on petitioner's counsel of record and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days of service. (Id. at 3.) Counsel filed timely objections to the pending findings and recommendations on petitioner's behalf. (Doc. No. 21.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the undersigned declines to adopt the findings and recommendations at this time. Rather, the undersigned finds petitioner's objections, at least in part, to be potentially well taken. Specifically, as petitioner's objections point out, petitioner specifically alleged in his pending petition and in his traverse that the California Court of Appeal relied on “material factual . . . errors” in affirming the state trial court's judgment and “unreasonably determined facts” in rejecting both petitioner's eyewitness identification and prosecutorial misconduct claims, as well as in its harmless error analysis. (Doc. Nos. 18 at 12, 24, 35, 41; 21 at 4.) Petitioner argues in his objections that the pending findings and recommendations misinterpreted and/or overlooked his claim that the California Court of Appeal decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. (Doc. No. 21 at 4.) The undersigned agrees that the pending findings and recommendations do not meaningfully engage the substance of petitioner's claim that the state court erroneously rejected his claims based upon an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings.
The pending findings and recommendations refer to this aspect of petitioner's collateral challenge to his state court conviction only in passing:
Petitioner does not claim that the Court of Appeal decision was “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented, ” and we do not believe it was. Even assuming that the Court of Appeal decision contained omissions or misinterpretations of the factual record, the alleged errors are small in the overall context of the evidence and legal issues presented, and could have led to no “unreasonable determination” of the facts.(Doc. No. 20 at 20, n.4). It appears to the undersigned that petitioner has consistently asserted in these federal habeas proceedings an “unreasonable determination of the facts” challenge to the state court judgment. If so, a more thorough review and analysis of that claim is called for here.
Because petitioner's allegations challenging the state court decision as having been based upon an unreasonable determination of the facts are material to whether petitioner received due process in the state court proceedings, the undersigned will refer the matter back to the now-assigned magistrate judge for issuance of amended or supplemental findings and recommendations.
Accordingly, 1. The undersigned at this time declines to adopt the findings and recommendations issued on June 24, 2020 (Doc. No. 20); and
2. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for the issuance of amended or supplemental findings and recommendations, addressing the issues raised in petitioner's objections (Doc. No. 21).
IT IS SO ORDERED.