Heim v. Gamboa et al

1
24-cv-2476-AJB-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JACOB DANIEL HEIM,
Petitioner,
v.
M. GAMBOA, Warden, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 24-cv-2476-AJB-DEB
ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 13);
(2) DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO RESUME (Doc. No. 4);
(3) DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO STAY (Doc. No. 6)
(4) DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. No. 1);
(5) DECLINING TO ISSUE
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Petitioner Jacob Daniel Heim (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has
filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his
San Diego County Superior Court conviction. (Doc. No. 1.) The petition was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher for a report and recommendation
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(d). On July 29, 2025,
Magistrate 	Judge 	Butcher 	issued 	an 	extensive 	Report 	and 	Recommendation 	that
Case 3:24-cv-02476-AJB-DEB Document 15 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 5

2
24-cv-2476-AJB-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
recommends denying Petitioner’s motions to resume and stay, and recommends dismissing
the Petition. (Doc. 13.) On August 11, 2025, Petitioner filed a timely objection to the
Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No. 14.) Respondents did not file a response to the
objections.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the Magistrate
Judge’s 	Report 	and 	Recommendation, 	Petitioner’s 	Objections 	to 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation, and has made a de novo determination. For the reasons herein, the Court:
(1) 	overrules 	Petitioner’s 	objections, 	(2) approves 	and 	adopts 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation, (3) denies Petitioner’s Motion to Resume (Doc. No. 4), (4) denies
Petitioner’s Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 6), (5) denies the Petition (Doc. No. 1), and (6)
declines to issue Petitioner a certificate of appealability.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On July 22, 2022, the San Diego County Superior Court sentenced Petitioner to
fourteen years in state prison on multiple counts of committing a lewd act on a child under
fourteen years old in violation of California Penal Code § 288(a). (Doc. No. 1 at 1–2.)
Petitioner represented himself at trial. (Id.) On direct appeal, represented by counsel,
Petitioner argued the trial court should not have permitted self-representation because,
although he was competent to stand trial, he was not competent to represent himself. (Doc.
No. 4 at 24–45.) The California Court of Appeal rejected Petitioner’s claims and affirmed
the judgment. (Doc. No. 4 at 9–23.) The California Supreme Court summarily denied
review. (Doc. No. 1-8 at 33.)
Petitioner then filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court. (Doc. No. 1.)
Because it appeared Petitioner had not exhausted his state court remedies, this Court issued
an order requiring Heim to either: (1) demonstrate he had exhausted the claims in his
Petition; (2) voluntarily dismiss his case, return to state court to exhaust his claims, and
refile the exhausted claims; or (3) move to stay this proceeding while he returns to state
court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. (Doc. No. 3.) Petitioner elected to move to stay
this case while he presented his claims to the state court. (Doc. No. 4.)
Case 3:24-cv-02476-AJB-DEB Document 15 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 5

3
24-cv-2476-AJB-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Petitioner then filed a “Petition for Review” with the California Supreme Court.
(Doc. No. 6 at 3–4.) The California Supreme Court returned Petitioner’s filing, explaining
it already considered and denied his Petition for Review. (Id. at 2.) Petitioner has now
returned to this Court claiming he exhausted his state remedies and seeking to resume his
Petition. (Id.)
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district
judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. If a party wishes to challenge
the recommendation, the party must “serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (emphasis added). The
party’s objections must “specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and
recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort
v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d
815, 822 (11th Cir.1989)). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not
a general objection to the report.” Id. at 784 (citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7
(3d Cir.1984)). “The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (emphasis
added). After concluding its review, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the
recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also United States v. Remsing, 874
F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989).
“The statute [§ 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that the district judge must review the
magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not
otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis
in original). Hence, in the absence of objection(s), 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(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment; Reyna-Tapia, 328
F.3d at 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
Case 3:24-cv-02476-AJB-DEB Document 15 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 5

4
24-cv-2476-AJB-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Objections that merely restate the arguments made in a petition lack merit. O’Brien
v. Cate, No. ED CV 12-1774 JSL JC, 2013 WL 1868961, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2013);
see Macort, 208 F. App’x. at 785 (holding that merely reciting language from a previous
order of the court or failing to set forth the applicable law is not a specific objection to
anything in the report and recommendation that would trigger de novo review by the
district court); see also N. Am. Clearing, Inc. v. Brokerage Computer Sys., Inc., 688 F.
Supp. 2d 1336, 1339 (M.D. Fla.), aff’d in part, rev’d in part and remanded on other
grounds, 395 F. App’x 563 (11th Cir. 2010) (“By merely reprinting verbatim the arguments
made in his Motion . . . [Defendant] has failed to ‘specifically identify the portions of the
proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis
for objection.’”). As to portions of the report to which no objection is made, the Court “may
assume the correctness of the magistrate judge’s findings of fact and decide the motion on
the applicable law.” Johnson v. Nelson, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 1217 (S.D. Cal. 2001).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Although Petitioner’s Objection is timely, the Objection is not proper under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2). Petitioner’s Objection makes little reference to the
Magistrate Judge’s report. Rather, the Objection is a nearly identical recitation of the
allegations in the Petition. (Compare Doc. No. 13, with Doc. No. 14.) Because Plaintiff
raises no legal basis to reject the Magistrate Judge’s report, his Objection will be overruled.
Moreover, after an independent de novo review of the record in this matter, the Court agrees
entirely 	with 	the 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	conclusions 	of 	law 	in 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation. Judge Butcher identified the correct legal standards, applied each
standard correctly, considered relevant case law, and reached sound conclusions that this
Court has no reason to reject.
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the files and records herein,
the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, the
Court DISMISSES the Petition.
Case 3:24-cv-02476-AJB-DEB Document 15 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 5

5
24-cv-2476-AJB-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IV. 	CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
When a district court enters a final order adverse to the applicant in a habeas corpus
proceeding, it must either issue or deny a certificate of appealability, which is required to
appeal a final order in a habeas corpus proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate
of appealability is appropriate only where the petitioner makes “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 330 (2003)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)). A “substantial showing” requires a demonstration that
“‘reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong.’” Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). For the reasons set forth in the Report and
Recommendation and incorporated here, the Court finds this standard has not been met,
and therefore a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
V. 	CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. No.
14) and 	ADOPTS 	the Report and Recommendation in its entirety (Doc. No. 13).
Petitioner’s Motion to Resume is DENIED because Petitioner has not exhausted state court
remedies on any of his sixteen claims. (Doc. No. 6.) Petitioner’s Motion to Stay is
DENIED because Petitioner’s claims are plainly without merit. (Doc. No. 4.) The Court
DISMISSES Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) with prejudice.
Additionally, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds
that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336
(2003). Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability and DIRECTS the
Clerk of Court to enter judgment and terminate this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 23, 2026
Case 3:24-cv-02476-AJB-DEB Document 15 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 5