1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL CAMPBELL, Case No. 2:20-cv-01530-JWH (SHK) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATION OF

14 WARDEN RICK HILL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE

15 Respondent. 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the 2 relevant records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States 3 Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged in de novo review of those portions of 4 the Report to which Petitioner has objected. The Court ACCEPTS the findings 5 and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 6 In the interest of thoroughness, the Court finds that Ground Three of the 7 Petition fails on both (1) procedural grounds, as stated on pages 15 through 20 of 8 the Report and Recommendation; and (2) on the merits. Specifically, to the extent 9 that Ground Three presents a cognizable federal claim, in light of the evidence 10 presented at trial and the instructions as a whole, there is no likelihood that the jury 11 applied the flight instruction in a way that violated the Constitution. See Houston 12 v. Roe, 177 F.3d 901, 908-09 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that, when a jury 13 instruction is alleged to have shifted the burden of proof, it “must be viewed in the 14 context of the entire trial and the jury instructions taken as a whole,” with “[t]he 15 relevant inquiry” being “whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has 16 applied the challenged instruction in an unconstitutional manner” (internal 17 quotation marks and citation omitted)). In addition, even if the Court could find 18 that the flight instruction was erroneous, any error was harmless in light of the trial 19 record as a whole. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637-38 (1993) 20 (stating that, on harmless error review, our inquiry “is whether, in light of the 21 record as a whole, [the error] had substantial and injurious effect or influence in 22 determining the jury’s verdict” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 23 It is therefore ORDERED as follows: 24 1. The Petition is DENIED. 25 26 27 1 2. Judgment shall be entered DISMISSING this action with prejudice. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 | Dated: May 23, 2023 YW ‘4 Yl 5 HONONABLE JOHN W. HOLCOMB 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28