1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ) 11 KEVIN LIU, ) Case No. CV 17-7465-SB (JPR) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND 13 v. ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. ) 14 MARCUS POLLARD, Warden, ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE ) 15 Respondent. ) ) 16 The Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and 17 Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge. On July 8, 18 2020, Petitioner filed Objections to the R. & R., in which he 19 mostly repeats arguments from his Petition and Traverse. In 20 light of his complaint that because of the COVID-19 pandemic he 21 had limited law-library access while preparing the Objections 22 (see Objs. at 1-2), the Magistrate Judge sua sponte granted him 23 additional time to file supplemental objections and then granted 24 his two requests for a further extension. On October 14, 2020, 25 Petitioner filed Supplemental Objections, in which he primarily 26 27 28 1 reiterates the arguments raised in his Objections.1 Respondent 2 has not responded to the Objections or Supplemental Objections. 3 Although he mostly spends his time discussing their merits 4 (see id. at 3-5), Petitioner also seems to contend that the 5 Magistrate Judge erred in finding grounds one through three and 6 six procedurally defaulted (id. at 2-5). Specifically, he 7 argues that the Petition’s claims were “presented in a timely 8 manner” to the state courts. (Id. at 2.) But as the Magistrate 9 Judge recognized as to claims one through three, and as the 10 Court previously found (see Aug. 31, 2018 R. & R. at 6-8; Oct. 11 10, 2018 Order Accepting R. & R.), the claims were barred 12 because they should have been raised on direct appeal, not 13 because they were untimely, and the Magistrate Judge rightly 14 rejected Petitioner’s argument that his appellate attorney’s 15 ineffectiveness excused his procedural default because that 16 claim, which was previously dismissed from the Petition, was 17 unexhausted (see R. & R. at 23-24). 18 Petitioner also asserts that his procedural default should 19 be excused because there was “no remedy [to be] found within the 20

21 1 Error! Main Document Only.Petitioner still maintains that he has been denied law-library access (Suppl. Objs. at 6), and he 22 emphasizes that he has “limited knowledge and understanding” of 23 English and no “knowledge and understanding of the legal procedures and processes” (id. at 7). But he did not request 24 additional time to file his Supplemental Objections, and his burden to establish entitlement to federal habeas relief is not 25 lessened by his pro se status. To the extent he claims he 26 received ineffective assistance from a fellow inmate in preparing his Objections and Supplemental Objections (see id. at 27 6-8), there is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. See Pennsylvania v. Finley,

, 28 555 (1987). 1 |/state’s courts,” suggesting that they would be reluctant to ever 2 ||find prosecutorial misconduct. (See Objs. at 4; Suppl. Objs. at 3 But “{ilf a defendant perceives a constitutional claim and 4 |ibelieves it may find favor in the federal courts, he may not 5 ||/bypass the state courts simply because he thinks they will be 6 |/junsympathetic to the claim.” Engle v. Isaac,

, 130 7 ||(1982) (rejecting argument that “cause” excusing procedural 8 ||}default was shown when raising claim in state court would have 9 |l|}been futile). Because Petitioner has failed to show that his 10 ||/default was excused by cause or actual prejudice, the Magistrate 11 ||/Judge didn’t err by not addressing grounds one through three and 12 on the merits. (See Objs. at 6.) 13 Having reviewed de novo those portions of the R. & R. to 14 ||/which Petitioner objects, the Court agrees with and accepts the 15 ||findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. IT 16 || THEREFORE IS ORDERED that judgment be entered denying the 17 ||Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. 18 19 ECR 20 21 DATED: November 23, 2020 STANLEY BLUMENFELD, JR. 22 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28