(HC) Anderson v. Sherman ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HEATHER G. ANDERSON, Case No. 2:21-cv-00120-KJM-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE FEDERAL CLAIM 13 v. AND RECOMMENDING THAT IT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 14 STEWARD SHERMAN, ECF No. 8 15 Respondent. 16 17 Heather G. Anderson, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas 18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Her initial petition argued only that under Proposition 57, a 19 California measure enacted by voters in 2016, her state convictions should be reclassified as 20 “non-violent” and she should be eligible for resentencing. ECF No. 1 at 4-5. I screened that 21 petition and advised her that the claim was non-cognizable because it implicated only questions 22 of state law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991) (“In conducting habeas review, a 23 federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or 24 treaties of the United States.”). I did not recommend dismissal after the first screening order, 25 however, and gave petitioner a chance to file an amended petition explaining why her claims 26 invoked a federal question. She has filed an amended petition, ECF No. 8, but I find that it still 27 raises only questions of state law and should be dismissed on that basis. 28 1 The amended petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules 2 | Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must 3 || examine the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that 4 | the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 5 | 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 6 As before, petitioner argues only that she is entitled to sentencing relief under Proposition 7 | 57. 8 at 4-5. She raises no new arguments in her amended petition and, as before, 8 | focuses on alleged errors of state law and procedure. Jd. at 5. As I explained in my previous 9 | order, those errors do not amount to violations of federal law. See Moore v. Matteson, No. CV 10 | 20-04516-JGB (DFM), 2020 WL 6363953, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (claims arising under 11 | Proposition 57 are issues of state law not cognizable in federal habeas corpus); Sherman v. Dir. of 12 | Corr., No. 2:19-cv-10827-SVW-JC, 2020 WL 6083670, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (same). 13 It is therefore RECOMMENDED that: 14 1. The amended petition, ECF No. 8, be dismissed without leave to amend. 15 2. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability. 16 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S. District Court Judge 17 | presiding over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of 18 | Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen days 19 | of service of the findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections to the 20 | findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document 21 | must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The 22 | District Judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. 23 | § 636(b)1)(C). 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 | q Sty — Dated: _ May 14, 2021 Q—— 27 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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