# Jonathan Gonzalez v. B. Cates

> District Court, C.D. California · February 8, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9982390

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** February 8, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9982390

## Opinion text

Case 2:21-cv-06316-ODW-GJS Document 30 Filed 02/08/23 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:2577

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10

11 JONATHAN GONZALEZ, Case No. 2:21-cv-06316-ODW (GJS)

12 Petitioner
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS
13 v. AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
14 B. CATES, JUDGE
15 Respondent.

16
17
18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, all
19 documents filed and lodged in this action, the Report and Recommendation of
20 United States Magistrate Judge [Dkt. 11, “Report”], Petitioner’s Objections to the
21 Report [Dkt. 27], and Petitioner’s Motion To Amend Habeas Petition [Dkt. 28,
22 “Motion”]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the
23 Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which
24 objections have been stated.
25 A district court has discretion, but is not required, to consider arguments
26 presented for the first time in objections to a report and recommendation. See
27 Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 744-45 (9th Cir. 2002); United States v. Howell, 231
28 F.3d 615, 621-22 (9th Cir. 2000). In the Motion, Petitioner asks the Court to amend
Case #:21-cv-06316-ODW-GJS Document 30 Filed 02/08/23 Page 2of2 Page ID #:2578

1 || the operative habeas petition to include two new grounds for relief he has argued in
2 || his Objections: (1) that witness Sara Chavez testified falsely; and (2) that witness
3 || Vladimir Levicky testified falsely. There is no showing that either claim has been
4 || exhausted in the state courts, nor has any adequate explanation been presented for
5 || Petitioner’s failure to do so or for his delay in waiting to raise these new claims until
6 || after briefing was completed and the Report had issued. To the extent that
7 || Petitioner seeks to have the Court consider these newly-asserted matters as extant
8 || bases for federal habeas relief, the Court exercises its discretion to decline to
9 || consider any such belatedly-raised habeas claims. That said, the Court has carefully
10 || considered all of the arguments raised in the Objections to the Report.
11 Having completed its review, the Court accepts the findings and
12 || recommendations set forth in the Report. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: the
13 || Petition is DENIED; the Motion is DENIED; and Judgment shall be entered
14 || dismissing this action with prejudice.
15
16 || DATE: February 8, 2023 eg
17
18 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9982390. Public record. Not legal advice.