Nazarian v. Uribe

Full title: VAHAN NAZARIAN, Petitioner, v. DOMINGO URIBE, JR., Warden, Respondent.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Oct 3, 2012

Case No. CV 10-6466-JFW (JPR) (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. CV 10-6466-JFW (JPR)

10-03-2012

VAHAN NAZARIAN, Petitioner, v. DOMINGO URIBE, JR., Warden, Respondent.

JOHN F. WALTER

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed de novo the Petition, records on file, and Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. On September 18, 2012, Petitioner, through counsel, filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation, in which he mostly simply reargues portions of the Petition and Reply. Petitioner argues that the Magistrate Judge erred when she found that the prosecutor's comments on the credibility of prosecution witness James Farrokh-Shahab "were not prosecutorial conduct." (Objections at 2.) The Magistrate Judge made no such finding. On page 46 of the Report and Recommendation she instead "assum[es] the prosecutor improperly vouched for Farrokh-Shahab" and finds that Petitioner failed to show prejudice from the vouching. For the reasons discussed in the Report and Recommendation, that conclusion was correct.

Petitioner also objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation on his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim concerning counsel's failure to object to the prosecution's refusal to grant immunity to witness Herach Mansoori. Other than Strickland v. Washington. 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), Petitioner cites only direct-criminal -appeal cases, in which a markedly different standard of review is at play than here on habeas review. The Court cannot fault the Magistrate Judge's analysis that the state courts were not objectively unreasonable in finding that no prosecutorial misconduct occurred and that counsel therefore were not ineffective for failing to object.

Having made a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Petitioner has filed Objections, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that (1) the Petition is DENIED without leave to amend; (2) Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED; and (3) Judgment be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.

______________________

JOHN F. WALTER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE