United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
MOHAMMAD SADAT-MOUSSAVI, GDC No. 1000081800, Petitioner,
v.
SHAWN EMMONS, Warden, Respondent.
PRISONER
HABEAS CORPUS 28 U.S.C. § 2254
ORDER
AMY
TOTENBERG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This
case is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Final
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [37] and
Petitioner's objections [39]. The Magistrate Judge
recommends that Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition for a writ of habeas corpus [1] be denied and a
certificate of appealability be denied. (Doc. 37 at 15.)
The
district court must “make a de novo determination of
those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is
made” and “may accept, reject, or modify [the
R&R], in whole or in part . . . .” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). “Parties filing objections to a
magistrate's [R&R] must specifically identify those
findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general
objections need not be considered by the district
court.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d
1353, 1361 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (quoting Marsden
v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988))
(internal quotation marks omitted). “When no timely
objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that
there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to
accept the recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, advisory
committee note, 1983 Addition, Subdivision (b).
The
Court initially notes that the Magistrate Judge set forth the
standard of review prescribed by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. (Doc. 37 at 5-6.) That
standard allowed consideration of “arguments or
theories [that] supported or . . . could have
supported” the Georgia Supreme Court's summary
denial of Petitioner's application for a certificate of
probable cause to appeal. (Id. at 5 (quoting
Hittson v. GDCP Warden, 759 F.3d 1210, 1232 (11th
Cir. 2014)).) After the R&R was issued, the United States
Supreme Court determined that the proper standard is to (1)
“ ‘look through' the [summary denial] to the
last related state-court decision that does provide a
relevant rationale, ” and (2) “presume that the
[summary denial] adopted the same reasoning.”
Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S.Ct. 1188, 1192 (2018).
The
R&R effectively followed Wilson by considering
the reasoned decision of the state habeas court.
(Id. at 6-13.) The Magistrate Judge did not need to
consider alternative “arguments or theories [that] . .
. could have supported” the summary denial of
Petitioner's application for a certificate of probable
cause to appeal. (Id. at 5 (quoting
Hittson, 759 F.3d at 1232).) Therefore, the
Magistrate Judge's analysis would not have changed if the
R&R was issued after Wilson was decided.
The
Magistrate Judge reached the following conclusions regarding
Petitioner's grounds for relief. As to ground one, the
record does not support Petitioner's claim that the
police, prosecution, and trial counsel “forged”
evidence against him. (Id. at 6-7.) Ground two,
regarding ineffective assistance of trial counsel, is
procedurally defaulted because Petitioner did not raise the
claim on direct appeal, and he failed to show cause and
prejudice to excuse the default. (Id. at 2, 3,
11-13.) As to ground three, appellate counsel did not provide
ineffective assistance by failing to raise Petitioner's
proposed appellate issues regarding the credibility of
witnesses and alleged disloyalty of trial counsel because
those issues were frivolous. (Id. at 7-9.)
As to
ground four, the record does not support Petitioner's
claim that appellate counsel conspired with a judge to
conceal misconduct at trial. (Id. at 6-7.) As to
ground five, Petitioner's claim that trial counsel could
not raise an ineffective assistance argument against himself
on appeal is irrelevant because Petitioner had different
counsel at trial and on appeal. (Id. at 10.) As to
ground six, Petitioner was not entitled to represent himself
on his motion for new trial because he failed to submit a
request for self-representation before trial. (Id.
at 10-11.) Finally, grounds seven and eight fail to state
claims for relief because they allege defects in
Petitioner's state habeas proceeding. (Id. at
14.)
Petitioner
objects that his previous filings demonstrated an entitlement
to relief on all grounds of his petition. (Doc. 39 at 1, 3,
5, 7, 9, 11.) However, Petitioner's objections lack
specific arguments showing why the Court should reject or
modify the R&R. The Court determines that the Magistrate
Judge fully considered the filings in this case and presented
sound reasons for denying Petitioner's grounds for
relief.
IT
IS ORDERED that Petitioner's objections [39] are
OVERRULED and the Magistrate Judge's
R&R [37] is ADOPTED as the Opinion and
Order of this Court. The § 2254 petition for a writ of
habeas corpus [1] is DENIED and a
certificate of appealability is DENIED. The
Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.
IT
...