(HC) Hasan v. Warden ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLARENCE NIMAR HASAN, No. 2:21-cv-0354 DB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 WARDEN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. Petitioner challenges his 2013 19 conviction in the Sacramento County Superior Court. Presently before the court is the petition for 20 screening. For the reasons set forth below, the court will recommend that the petition be 21 dismissed without leave to amend. 22 SCREENING 23 I. Screening Requirement 24 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, this court is required to conduct 25 a preliminary review of all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. Pursuant to 26 Rule 4, this court must summarily dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and 27 any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” 28 //// 1 II. Sole Ground Alleged is not Cognizable in Federal Habeas Proceeding 2 Petitioner alleges that his conviction is invalid because charges were brought via 3 complaint rather than via indictment or information. (ECF No. 1 at 18.) He concludes that 4 because the charges were not properly brought the court did not have jurisdiction and the 5 conviction is invalid. (Id. at 48.) 6 The Sixth Amendment guarantees that a criminal defendant has the right to be informed of 7 the nature and cause of the charges against him. In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273 (1948). 8 Petitioner was informed of the nature and cause of the charges against him. He has attached the 9 complaint stating the charges against him as an exhibit to the petition. (ECF No. 1 at 53-58.) 10 However, he claims that because the form of the notice was a felony complaint, rather than an 11 indictment or information, the conviction is invalid. Such an argument is not supported by law. 12 “There is no federal constitutional provision, whether under the Fifth or the Sixth 13 Amendment, requiring that a criminal defendant be informed of the nature and cause of the 14 charges against him via a grand jury indictment or in a manner prescribed by state law.” Caisse 15 v. Mattheson, No. 20-cv-3155 HSG, 2020 WL 5760284 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2020); see also 16 Escamilla v. Dias, 2021 WL 1225977, at *1-2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2021) (dismissing petition, 17 explaining in part that, “petitioner’s sole claim in the petition alleging his state criminal 18 prosecution was unlawful because the charges were brought via a felony complaint, and not a 19 grand jury indictment, does not present a federal questions”). 20 Petitioner alleges that the California Constitution requires felony charges to be brought by 21 information or indictment. (ECF No. 1 at 42.) However, “[a] prosecutor would not be precluded 22 under article I, section 14.1 of the California Constitution from proceeding by way of a complaint 23 and preliminary hearing where a grand jury declined to return an indictment on any number of 24 felony charges sought by a prosecutor. . . .” Smith v. Frauenheim, No. 2:15-cv-0151 MCE EFB 25 P, 2016, WL 7384039, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2016). Even if petitioner’s rights protected by 26 the California Constitution were violated, such an allegation is not cognizable in federal habeas 27 because it is based on an alleged violation of state law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67- 28 68 (1991) (noting “it is not the province of a federal habeas court to re-examine state-court 1 | determinations on state-law questions”). Further, “[i]n California, the prosecution may proceed 2 | against a defendant either by way of complaint or indictment.” Smith v. Tilton, No. 05-CV-2021 3 | H(POR), 2007 WL 2019647 at *29 (S.D. Cal. Jul. 10, 2007) (citing Cal. Const. art I, § 14). Thus, 4 | the sole ground alleged in the petition is not cognizable in a federal habeas action. Accordingly, 5 | the court will recommend that the petition be dismissed. 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the reasons set forth above, the Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to randomly assign 8 || this action to a District Judge. 9 HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without 10 | leave to amend. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Court 12 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen 13 || days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 14 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 15 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 16 | within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 17 | Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (th Cir. 1991). 18 || Dated: August 18, 2021 19 20 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 DB:12 27 || DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Habeas/$/hasa0354.scm.dism 28