Case 2:22-cv-05904-SSS-E Document 27 Filed 03/20/23 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:5833

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAULO C. ALVARADO AMAYA, ) NO. CV 22-5904-SSS(E) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 13 v. ) ) CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 RAY MADDEN, Warden, ) ) OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 ) Respondents. ) 16 ______________________________) 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636, the Court has reviewed the 19 Petition, all of the records herein and the attached Report and 20 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court 21 has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and 22 Recommendation to which any objections have been made. 23 24 The Court notes that, in his Objections, Petitioner argues that 25 the cases of Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522 (1952) and Ker v. 26 United States, 119 U.S. 436, 444 (1886) are inapplicable to a claim 27 regarding the violation of an extradition treaty. [Dkt. 22 at 2-3]. 28 The Court finds that the Frisbie and Ker citations in the Report and Case 2:22-cv-05904-SSS-E Document 27 Filed 03/20/23 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:5834

1 Recommendation are important for a thorough analysis of Petitioner's 2 claim and, even if the Court were to set aside the reliance on the 3 Frisbie and Ker authority, Petitioner's claim that his restraint 4 violates the extradition treaty still does not entitle him to habeas 5 relief. See Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 2007) 6 (citations omitted) (in civil rights case, allegations that state 7 officials ignored established extradition procedures and effectively 8 kidnapped plaintiff did not invalidate plaintiff's incarceration in 9 state to which he was extradited); Eckert v. Tansy, 936 F.2d 444, 450 10 (9th Cir. 1991) ("Eckert cannot be granted habeas corpus relief on 11 the ground of illegal extradition.") (citation omitted)). 12 13 In addition, as to Claim Two, to the extent in his Objections 14 Petitioner attempts to create a cognizable federal claim by arguing 15 the state courts' lack of jurisdiction deprived him of due process, 16 [Dkt. 22 at 5-6], "[Petitioner] may not . . . transform a state-law 17 issue into a federal one merely by asserting a violation of due 18 process." See Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996). 19 20 As to Claim Three, in his Objections Petitioner does not attempt 21 to show that the State destroyed the evidence at issue in bad faith. 22 [Dkt. 22 at 7-10]. Accordingly, his Objections lack merit for the 23 reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. 24 25 As to Claim Four, Petitioner still does not show that the 26 defense could have presented helpful expert testimony on the time of 27 death based on the evidence available in this case. [Dkt. 22 at 28 11-18]. Petitioner’s speculation to the contrary is insufficient to 2 Case 2:22-cv-05904-SSS-E Document 27 Filed 03/20/23 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:5835

1 establish ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to 2 present expert testimony. See Grisby v.Blodgett, 130 F.3d 365, 373 3 (9th Cir. 1997) ("Speculation about what an expert could have said is 4 not enough to establish [Strickland] prejudice."). Moreover, to the 5 extent Petitioner faults his trial counsel for failing to present a 6 police report summary of Ashley's statements to police, [Dkt. 22 at 7 18-20], his argument fails for the reasons stated in the Report and 8 Recommendation. To the extent Petitioner now argues that he was 9 denied his right to present a complete defense based on the fact that 10 the jury was not presented with the police report summary of Ashley’s 11 statements, [Dkt. 22 at 20], his argument fails because he has not 12 shown that he was prevented from presenting the police report summary 13 at trial. Rather, Petitioner has shown only that trial counsel did 14 not present the police report and that the trial court accepted 15 counsels' stipulation that the jury should not see the police report 16 summary during deliberations because it was not submitted as evidence 17 at trial. [Dkt. 19 at 61]. 18 19 Finally, as to Claim Five, Petitioner Objections, [Dkt. 22 at 20 21-23], fails for the reasons stated in the Report and 21 Recommendation. 22 23 Accordingly, the Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s 24 Report and Recommendation. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment 25 shall be entered denying and dismissing the Petition with prejudice. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// Case 2:22-cv-05904-SSS-E Document 27 Filed 03/20/23 Page 4of4 Page ID #:5836

1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order, 2) the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the Judgment 3] herein on Petitioner and on counsel for Respondent. 5 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 7 DATED: March 20, 2023. 9 10

SUNSHINE SYKES

11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28