Brooks v. Perkins

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 CARL ALONZO BROOKS CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05509 8 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 9 RECOMMENDATION AND OVERRULING v. OBJECTIONS 10 JEFFERY PERKINS, 11 Respondent. 12 13 On December 3, 2025, U.S. Magistrate Judge David Christel issued a Report 14 and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court deny Petitioner Carl 15 Alonzo Brooks’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and his request for an 16 evidentiary hearing. Dkt. No. 23. Brooks’s timely objections to the R&R come before 17 the Court. Dkt. No. 24. For the reasons below, the Court OVERRULES the 18 objections and ADOPTS the R&R. 19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 allows a party to file written objections to 20 a R&R within fourteen days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The objections must be 21 “specific” and relate “to the [R&R’s] proposed findings and recommendations.” Id. 22 “The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s 23 disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The 1 resulting order need not address each objection specifically. United States v. Ramos, 2 65 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023) (“We have presumed that district courts conduct 3 proper de novo review where they state they have done so, even if the order fails to 4 specifically address a party’s objections.”). 5 First, Brooks argues that the R&R does not show that his Personal Restraint 6 Petition (“PRP 2”), filed on June 26, 2023, was untimely. The R&R acknowledges 7 that the PRP 2 was timely filed in state court under the two-years statute of 8 limitations in RCW 4.16.130. But a timely filed PRP does not change the fact that 9 Brooks’s habeas petition was untimely. By the time Brooks filed the PRP 2, the one- 10 year statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 11 (AEDPA) had already expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Brooks’s PRP 2 could not 12 toll the AEDPA limitations period, and Brooks is not entitled to equitable tolling. 13 Accordingly, the Court overrules Brooks’s objection. 14 Second, Brooks argues that the Intermediate Sentencing Review Board 15 (“ISRB”) decision did not account for the arguments he made in the PRP 2 about 16 why his sentence violated the ex post facto clause. Federal habeas review of parole 17 proceedings is limited to whether the prisoner received procedural protections, 18 including the opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons why parole 19 was denied. Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 221 (2011). Brooks does not argue 20 that he was denied procedural protections. His disagreement with how the ISRB 21 weighed his substantive arguments does not constitute a federal habeas claim. 22 Accordingly, the Court overrules Brooks’s objection. 23 1 Third, Brooks argues that an evidentiary hearing is necessary so that he can 9 || prove the ISRB perjured itself when it allegedly lied about Brooks’s refusal to meet 3 || with a psychologist. Whether to hold an evidentiary hearing is within a district 4 |/court’s discretion, and the court need not hold one if the petitioner's allegations 5 would not entitle him to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 G U.S. 465, 474 (2007) (quoting Totten v. Merkle, 137 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 1998) 7 (“[A]n evidentiary hearing is not required on issues that can be resolved by 8 reference to the state court record.”)). Because the petition could be resolved on the 9 existing record, no evidentiary hearing was required. Accordingly, the Court 10 overrules Brooks’s objection. 11 Finally, Brooks makes sweeping arguments that the magistrate judge was 12 motivated by racism in his handling of Brooks’s petition. Without any supporting 13 || facts, Brooks’s accuses the magistrate judge of having a “Jim Crow idealist 14 || perspective” and “practice[ing] Jim Crow ideals.” There is no evidence to show that 15 the magistrate judge harbored any bias or prejudice towards Brooks. 16 Accordingly, after considering Brooks’s objections de novo, the Court 17 || ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Dkt. No. 23. 18 Dated this 30th day of January, 2026. 19 Z g Le~— 20 Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge 21 22 23