Mark Jenkins v. Carlos Arce ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 12 MARK JENKINS, No. 2:24-cv-08473-DOC-BFM 13 Petitioner, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 WHY HABEAS PETITION CARLOS ARCE, SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 SUMMARY OF ORDER 19 Petitioner Mark Jenkins filed a habeas petition in federal court arguing 20 that he should be resentenced in state court. Jenkins’ claim does not appear to 21 be cognizable on federal habeas review—meaning, it is not the kind of claim for 22 which the federal courts may grant habeas relief. Federal courts may only grant 23 federal habeas relief if a prisoner is held in violation of the federal Constitution, 24 a federal statute, or treaty. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991). But 25 Jenkins’ claim appears to be a matter of state resentencing law, and a court may 26 not grant federal habeas corpus relief for errors of state law. Wilson v. Corcoran, 27 562 U.S. 1, 5 (2010). To the extent Jenkins has a cognizable claim in this Court, 28 it does not appear that he exhausted that claim by presenting it to the state’s 1 highest court before filing this federal Petition. The Court therefore orders 2 Jenkins to explain why his Petition should not be dismissed. If Jenkins fails 3 to timely respond to this order, the Court will recommend that his 4 Petition be dismissed without prejudice. 5 6 ORDER 7 Jenkins is a California state prisoner currently housed in Salinas Valley 8 State Prison. (ECF 1 at 2.) He was convicted of first-degree murder in the Los 9 Angeles County Superior Court at Long Beach, California. He filed this Petition 10 because he believes he is entitled to resentencing under “the new definitions” of 11 premeditated intent. (ECF 1 at 6.) 12 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 13 District Courts allows a district court to dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears 14 from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to 15 relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 16 Cases. It appears that this Petition is subject to dismissal under Rule 4 because 17 it does not set forth a cognizable claim and because the claims it presents are 18 not exhausted. The Court will discuss each of these in turn. 19 First, a federal court may only grant federal habeas relief upon a showing 20 that the petitioner is in custody in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties 21 of the United States. McGuire, 502 U.S. at 68. A court may not grant federal 22 habeas corpus relief for errors of solely state law. Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 23 1, 5 (2010). Jenkins says he is entitled to resentencing under the “new 24 definitions” of premeditated intent. That description alone does not make clear 25 what Jenkins is arguing, but where he describes his most recent state habeas 26 petition, he cites People v. Delgadillo, 14 Cal. 5th 216 (2022), “changes” to 27 California’s murder and felony-murder statutes, and Penal Code section 1172.6. 28 (ECF 1 at 4.) See also People v. Jenkins, No. B333782, 2024 WL 2929701 (Cal. 1 Ct. App. Jun. 11, 2024) (affirming denial of petition for resentencing under 2 California Penal Code section 1172.6, which authorizes the filing of a petition 3 for resentencing in state court where an individual was convicted of felony- 4 murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine). 5 To the extent that Jenkins’ Petition here rests on those same grounds, his 6 claim is not cognizable on federal habeas review—that is, it is not the kind of 7 claim as to which the federal court may grant habeas relief. Any entitlement he 8 may have to being resentenced is a matter of state law, and federal habeas relief 9 may not be granted for errors of state law. See Malone v. Gastelo, No. CV 21- 10 04335 JLS (RAO), 2022 WL 14966301, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2022), report 11 and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 15173364 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2022) 12 (finding that a state court’s denial of resentencing under section 1172.6 does not 13 raise a cognizable issue on federal habeas review). 14 Second, a state prisoner must exhaust state court remedies before a 15 federal court may consider granting habeas corpus relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 16 2254(b)(1)(A); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). To satisfy the 17 exhaustion requirement, a habeas petitioner must “give the State the 18 opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal 19 rights.” Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) (citation and quotation 20 marks omitted). For a petitioner in California state custody, this generally 21 means that the petitioner must have fairly presented his federal claims to the 22 California Supreme Court. See O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845 (interpreting 28 23 U.S.C. § 2254(c)); see also Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 1999) 24 (applying O’Sullivan to California). 25 Here, the Petition does not reflect that Jenkins presented his claim for 26 resentencing to the California Supreme Court. (ECF 1 at 4 (stating that Jenkins 27 filed a state habeas petition in the California Court of Appeal only).) Moreover, 28 1 || a search of the California Supreme Court’s docket! does not reflect any recent 2 || filing in that Court under his name. As such, it appears his Petition is subject 3 || to dismissal for failure to exhaust. 4 Before the Court recommends dismissal of the action on these grounds, 5 || the Court will give Jenkins an opportunity to respond. Jenkins is therefore 6 |} ORDERED to show cause—to explain in writing—why the Court should not 7 || recommend dismissal of the Petition for failure to raise a cognizable claim and 8 || for failure to exhaust. Jenkins shall file his response no later than November 9 || 12, 2024. 10 Petitioner’s failure to file a timely response as ordered may result 11 |} in the Court recommending that his case be dismissed without 12 || prejudice for failure to exhaust, failure to present cognizable claims, 13 || and/or for failure to prosecute and to follow court orders. 14 15 || DATED: October 10, 2024 16 inaff 17 ——SRIANNA FULLER MIRCHEFF 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ||; ——_—_——___ 28 ' https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/