Eddie Turner v. Ralph M. Diaz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDDIE TURNER, ) NO. CV 20-0830-AB (KS) Petitioner, ) ) v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND ) ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED

RALPH M. DIAZ, Warden, ) STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE )

Respondent. ) _________________________________ )

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the operative Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Petition”), all the records herein, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”). Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner has raised objections (“Objections”) (Dkt. No. 54) as well as his renewed request for an evidentiary hearing (Dkt. No. 49).

Most significantly, Petitioner asserts that the Court “looked through” the California Supreme Court’s decision to the wrong decision by the California Court of Appeal. (See Objections at 4-7.) Specifically, Petitioner contends that the Court should have “looked through” the California Supreme Court’s decision to the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Turner v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. B247883, 2015 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5090 (Jul. 21, 2015) rather than to the California Court of Appeal’s decision in People v. Turner, No. B272452, 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4843 (Jul. 22, 2019). However, Turner v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. B247883, was a civil case between Petitioner and Bank of America. Therefore, the Court finds no error. For the purposes of this habeas proceeding, the Court properly looked through the California Supreme Court’s decision to the Court of Appeal’s decision in case number B272452, which concerned the criminal conviction at issue.

The Court finds Petitioner’s other objections equally unavailing. Further, it finds that Petitioner’s renewed request for an evidentiary hearing should be denied for the reasons stated in the Report. Having completed its review, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Petition is denied; and (2) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.

DATED: June 15, 2021

___________________________________ ANDRÉ BIROTTE, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE