From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ewalan v. Holbrook

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
May 10, 2022
No. C20-1497JLR-SKV (W.D. Wash. May. 10, 2022)

Opinion

C20-1497JLR-SKV

05-10-2022

JOSEPH LOCHUCH EWALAN, Petitioner, v. DON HOLBROOK, Respondent.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JAMES L. ROBART UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the court is United States Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan's report and recommendation. (R&R (Dkt. # 85).) Magistrate Judge Vaughan recommends that this court (1) deny Petitioner Joseph Lochuch Ewalan's amended habeas corpus petition (Am. Pet. (Dkt. # 13)); (2) deny multiple motions filed by Mr. Ewalan (see Mot. for Transcript (Dkt. # 39); Mot. to Expand Record (Dkt. # 58); 2d Mot. to Expand Record (Dkt. # 59); Mot. to File Lawsuit (Dkt. # 79)); (3) deny Mr. Ewalan's request for an evidentiary hearing; (4) dismiss this action with prejudice; and (5) deny a certificate of appealability. (See generally R&R.) Mr. Ewalan, who is proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and pro se in this matter, filed timely objections to the report and recommendation, along with an affidavit and multiple exhibits. (Obj. (Dkt. # 86); Aff. (Dkt. # 87); Exs. (Dkt. # 88).) Having carefully reviewed all of the foregoing, along with all other relevant documents, and the governing law, the court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Vaughan's report and recommendation; DENIES Mr. Ewalan's objections; and DISMISSES Mr. Ewalan's amended habeas corpus petition with prejudice.

Respondent Don Holbrook has neither filed objections nor responded to Mr. Ewalan's objections. (See generally Dkt.)

II. ANALYSIS

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). “The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” Id.; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Upon review, “[a] judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Because Mr. Ewalan is proceeding pro se, the court must interpret his petition and objections liberally. See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles Cnty., 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003).

In her report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Vaughan carefully reviewed the fourteen grounds for relief asserted by Mr. Ewalan in his amended habeas corpus petition. (See R&R at 4-6 (listing the fourteen grounds for relief); Am. Pet.) She recommends that the court find that grounds 2, 9, 13, and 14 are barred for failure to exhaust and are procedurally defaulted (id. at 6-17) and that the remaining grounds fail on the merits (id. at 17-59). She further recommends that the court deny Mr. Ewalan's multiple motions to expand the record, for an evidentiary hearing and “to file a lawsuit.” (Id. at 59-67.) Finally, she recommends that the court deny a certificate of appealability for failure to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” (Id. at 67 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3)).) The court has thoroughly examined the report and recommendation, Mr. Ewalan's objections thereto, and the balance of the record before it. On de novo review, the court finds Magistrate Judge Vaughan's reasoning persuasive in light of that record. Therefore, the court independently denies Mr. Ewalan's objections and motions for the same reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Vaughan's report and recommendation.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court:

(1) ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 85) in its entirety;

(2) DENIES Mr. Ewalan's amended petition for habeas corpus (Dkt. # 13) and DISMISSES this action with prejudice;

(3) DENIES Mr. Ewalan's motions (a) to order Respondents to produce the court of appeal transcript (Dkt. # 39); (b) for leave to expand the record under Rule 7 (Dkt. # 58); (c) to expand the record by two additional items (Dkt. # 59); and (d) to file a lawsuit (Dkt. # 79); and

(4) DENIES a certificate of appealability.

The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send copies of this order to Mr. Ewalan, to counsel for Mr. Holbrook, and to Magistrate Judge Vaughan.


Summaries of

Ewalan v. Holbrook

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
May 10, 2022
No. C20-1497JLR-SKV (W.D. Wash. May. 10, 2022)
Case details for

Ewalan v. Holbrook

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH LOCHUCH EWALAN, Petitioner, v. DON HOLBROOK, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Western District of Washington

Date published: May 10, 2022

Citations

No. C20-1497JLR-SKV (W.D. Wash. May. 10, 2022)

Citing Cases

United States v. Paschal

See, e.g., United States v. Cannon, 539 F.3d 601, 603 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirming use of Rule 15 deposition…