1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11

MATTHEW JAMES MEJIA, ) NO. SACV 16-1760-VBF (AGR)

) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATION OF 13 v. ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE C.E. DUCART, Warden, ) 14 ) Respondent. ) 15 ) ) 16 ) ) 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of 19 Habeas Corpus, the other records on file herein, the Report and 20 Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) and the 21 Objections. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions 22 of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The 23 Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 24 With respect to Ground One, Petitioner cites Andrade v. Foulk, 2016 U.S. 25 Dist. LEXIS 17777 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2016), for his argument that 26 uncorroborated accomplice testimony cannot support a criminal conviction. 27 Andrade, however, denied federal habeas relief. Id. at *41; see Caminetti v. 28 United States, 242 U.S. 470, 495 (1917) (“there is no absolute rule of law 1 preventing convictions on the testimony of accomplices if juries believe them”); 2 United States v. Necoechea, 986 F.2d 1273, 1282 (9th Cir. 1993). Andrade is 3 consistent with the Report. 4 Petitioner’s remaining objections are without merit. 5 Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is denied. A noncapital 6 federal habeas petitioner generally does not have a constitutional right to 7 counsel. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); Pennsylvania v. Finley, 8 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987). Petitioner has evidenced a good understanding of the 9 issues and has been able to articulate his grounds for relief. Briefing has now 10 concluded. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). Petitioner has 11 not shown that the interests of justice warrant appointment. 18 U.S.C. § 12 3006A(a)(2)(B). 13 Petitioner also has not shown that investigator services are necessary 14 within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e). Petitioner asks for an investigator to 15 obtain his trial counsel’s file, police reports, CDs of the interrogation, evidence 16 about the car headlights and back windows, and an affidavit from the driver of the 17 car. Petitioner does not explain why he needs the CDs. Transcripts of interviews 18 are in the record. (Clerk’s Transcript, Lodged Document (“LD”) 2 at 315-61, 363- 19 409.) Petitioner has not shown a need for police reports or evidence about the 20 car headlights and back windows. (See Report at 24.) Petitioner has not shown 21 a need for an investigator to obtain now an affidavit from the driver. The Report 22 recommended that Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim be denied 23 because, among other things, Petitioner has not shown counsel could have 24 compelled the co-defendant driver, who was represented by separate counsel 25 and scheduled for a later trial, to testify at Petitioner’s trial. (Report at 23-24.) 26 The analysis under Strickland must “eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight” 27 and “evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.” Strickland v. 28 1 Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1984); see Edwards v. Miller, 2016 U.S. Dist. 2 LEXIS 72273, *71-*72 (S.D. Cal. June 1, 2016) (finding petitioner failed to 3 establish good cause for appointment of expert for independent DNA testing in 4 support of ineffective assistance claim). Petitioner has not otherwise shown a 5 need for his counsel's trial file. See Stubbs v. Gomez, 189 F.3d 1099, 1107 (9th 6 Cir. 1999) (affirming denial of request under § 3006A(e)). 7 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that judgment be entered denying the 8 Petition and dismissing this action on the merits with prejudice. 9 10 Dated: November 7, 2019 plein baber, feutooake

12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28