1 2 3

4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 KEVIN DEON BRAZIER, NO. EDCV 24-2357-MRA (AGR) 10 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF 11 v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12 EDWARD BORLA, 13 Respondent. 14

15 16 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of 17 Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), the other records on file herein, the Report and 18 Recommendation (“Report”) and the Objections. Further, the Court has engaged 19 in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to 20 which objections have been made. Petitioner points out that the Report contains a typographical error in 21 describing Ground One of the Petition. On page 13, line 8 of the Report, the word 22 “instruction” should read “intrusion.” (Report at 13:8; Petition at 7, Ground One.) 23 Petitioner has not shown that correction of the typographical error alters the 24 Report’s analysis of Petitioner’s claim based on the resentencing proceedings 25 under

. Moreover, Petitioner’s citation to McKaskle v. 26 Wiggins,

(1984), does not support his claim. The McKaskle opinion 27 addressed standby counsel at trial and noted that “the appearance of a pro se 28 1 defendant’s self-representation will not be unacceptably undermined by counsel’s 2 participation outside the presence of the jury.”

. The “trial judge . . . 3 must be considered capable of differentiating the claims presented by a pro se 4 defendant from those presented by standby counsel.”

The judge who 5 presided at the § 1172.6 proceedings explained the scope of such proceedings to Petitioner. 6 Petitioner contends the Report incorrectly states that the trial court “denied 7 Petitioner’s request to strike the petition for resentencing” and “denied 8 resentencing.” (Report at 4:8-10.) The Report cites to the transcript of 9 proceedings, which contains the following questions and answers between the 10 prosecutor and court: [Q] “So the defendant’s motion to strike the petition and 11 resentence is denied?” [A] “Yes.” [Q] Is the Court denying the defendant’s 12 petition for resentencing based upon the fact that he received no applicable jury 13 instructions [under § 1172.6]?” [A] “Yes. I’m taking judicial notice of the court 14 record.” (Dkt. No. 13-5 at 51:17-19.) Petitioner has not shown that the Report is 15 incorrect.1 16 The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Report except 17 for the typographical errors. 18 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED as follows: 19 (1) Respondent’s motion to dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 20 is GRANTED; 21 (2) Ground One is dismissed. 22 (3) Grounds Two, Three, and Four are dismissed without prejudice to 23 Petitioner’s ability to file an Application for Leave to File Second or Successive 24

25 1 Petitioner also contends that the Report incorrectly states that the Marsden records are sealed. (Report at 4:15-5.) The Report recites the state 26 court’s ruling that: “The request to unseal the Marsden hearings at this stage of the proceedings is denied . . . .” (Dkt. No. 13-5 at 31:20-22.) After explaining the 27 scope of inquiry under § 1172.6, the state court reiterated: “The request to unseal the Marsden hearing is denied for the reasons that I’ve already articulated.” (Id. 28 at 35:3-4.) 1 | Petition Under

with the proposed § 2254 second or successive 2 || petition in the Ninth Circuit. 3 (4) Petitioner's motion to transfer the existing Petition to the Ninth Circuit is 4 | denied because the Petition includes Ground One, which is not second or 5 || successive. (Dkt. No. 16.) 6 The Clerk is directed to send Petitioner Ninth Circuit Form 12 (Application 7 for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition) and a form petition under g § 2254. 9 10 | DATED: July 08, 2025 g, feiss? A AC. 11 NICA RAMIREZ ALMADANI United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28