(HC) Taylor v. Coleman ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HORATIO RON TAYLOR, Case No. 1:20-cv-00432-JDP 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISCHARGING APRIL 16, 2020 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. ECF No. 28 14 C. COLEMAN, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 15 Respondent. DISMISS PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE 16 CLAIM 17 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS 18 ECF No. 10 19 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 Petitioner Horatio Ron Taylor, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of 22 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 10. Petitioner makes one claim for relief: that 23 the passage of a new state law entitles him to a reversal of his California conviction for 24 possession of marijuana while incarcerated. Id. On April 16, 2020, we ordered petitioner to 25 show cause why his petition should not be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. ECF 26 No. 28. Considering petitioner’s May 27, 2020 response, we will discharge the order to show 27 cause. ECF No. 28. However, petitioner’s response has failed to show how his claim is 28 1 cognizable under federal habeas review. Accordingly, we recommend that his petition be 2 dismissed. 3 Discussion 4 A federal court “shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a 5 person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in 6 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 7 2254(a). Federal habeas relief is not available for alleged violations of state law. See Estelle v. 8 McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991). 9 Here, petitioner was convicted in 2013 of possession of marijuana while in state custody. 10 ECF No. 10 at 2. In 2016, California passed Proposition 64, which legalized recreation marijuana 11 use and reduced certain penalties for marijuana-related offenses.1 Since that time, state prisoners 12 have sought relief from their convictions for possession of marijuana while incarcerated. 13 Recently, there has been disagreement among the districts of the California Court of Appeal 14 whether Proposition 64 provides any remedies to individuals convicted of possession of 15 marijuana while incarcerated. See People v. Raybon, 36 Cal. App. 5th 111 (2019); People v. 16 Perry, 32 Cal. App. 5th 885 (2019). The issue is currently pending before the California Supreme 17 Court. See People v. Raybon, No. S256978 (Cal. July 19, 2019). 18 Petitioner sought habeas relief from his conviction before the California Supreme Court 19 and was denied review on July 24, 2019. ECF No. 10 at 2. To the extent petitioner asks us to 20 review a state court’s decision based purely on state law, his claim is not cognizable on federal 21 habeas review. See Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67; Booten v. Rackley, No. 2: 17-cv-05261-VBF (KS), 22 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115325, at *6 (C.D. Cal. July 24, 2017) (declining to review a federal 23 habeas petitioner’s claim that Proposition 64 required a modification of his state sentence for 24 1 On November 8, 2016, California voters passed Proposition 64, the Control, Regulate and Tax 25 Adult Use of Marijuana Act, which “legalized the recreational use of marijuana and reduced the criminal penalties for various marijuana-related offenses, including the cultivation and possession 26 for sale of marijuana.” See People v. Boatwright, 36 Cal. App. 5th 848, 853 (2019). It also 27 authorized an individual currently serving a sentence to petition the trial court that entered the conviction for a recall or dismissal of sentence. Id. (citing Cal. Health & Safety Code 28 § 11361.8(a)). 1 possession of marijuana). Rather, petitioner must state a claim that he is “in custody in violation 2 of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). We cannot find 3 any “clearly established federal law” that requires California state courts to overturn convictions 4 based on Proposition 64. See White, 572 U.S. at 419. Therefore, his petition should be 5 dismissed. 6 Certificate of Appealability 7 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to appeal a district 8 court’s denial of a petition; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; 9 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Rule 11 Governing § 2254 Cases requires a 10 district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a 11 petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th 12 Cir. 1997). A certificate of appealability will not issue unless a petitioner makes “a substantial 13 showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard requires 14 the petitioner to show that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of 15 his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to 16 deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; accord Slack v. 17 McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the 18 denial of a constitutional right. Thus, we recommend that the court not issue a certificate of 19 appealability. 20 Findings and Recommendations 21 The court should dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 10, and decline 22 to issue a certificate of appealability. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the 23 U.S. District Court judge presiding over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of 24 the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 25 Within 30 days of the service of the findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 26 objections to the findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. 27 That document must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 28 Recommendations.” The district judge will then review the findings and recommendations under wOoe UVTI MARE VT MMU Or POO MIEN AY OT Mt 1 | 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 2 | Order 3 The court’s April 16, 2020 order to show cause is discharged. ECF No. 28. The clerk of 4 | court is directed to assign this case to a district judge for the purposes of reviewing these findings 5 | and recommendations. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. : —N prssann — Dated: _ June 5, 2020 9 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 | No. 206. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28