(HC) Oskuie v. Atascadero State Hospital ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAYVAN MOHAMMAD OSKUIE, No. 2:21-cv-1038 AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 ATASCADERO STATE HOSPITAL, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 18 together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 19 Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford 20 the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 21 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 22 Petitioner is currently housed at Atascadero State Hospital and appears to be confined 23 there as a condition of his parole under California Penal Code § 2962. ECF No. 1 at 1, 7. It is 24 unclear from the petition whether petitioner is attempting to challenge his underlying conviction, 25 his confinement under § 2962, or some other aspect of his conviction or sentence. The petition 26 identifies several general grounds for relief, such as the use of evidence obtained during an 27 unlawful arrest and ineffective assistance of counsel, but does not provide supporting facts 28 regarding the alleged violations, such as what evidence was unlawfully obtained or how counsel 1 || was ineffective. Id. at 4-5. It also appears that petitioner may be attempting to claim his credits 2 || were improperly calculated and challenge his confinement at Atascadero State Hospital. Id. at 3, 3 | 5, 7-9. 4 To the extent petitioner is attempting to challenge his conviction, the alleged violations 5 || are stated too broadly and lack any specific facts related to the violations. To the extent petitioner 6 || may be attempting to claim his credits were miscalculated in violation of state law, allegations of 7 || error regarding state law are not cognizable under federal habeas, Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 8 | 780 (1990), and he cannot transform his claim into a federal one by simply asserting a due 9 || process violation, Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996). Finally, if petitioner is 10 || attempting to challenge his confinement at Atascadero State Hospital, it is unclear on what 11 | grounds he is basing his challenge. 12 Because it is unclear whether petitioner has stated any cognizable claims or what claims 13 || he is attempting to bring, the petition will not be served, and petitioner will be required to file an 14 || amended petition. Failure to do so will result in a recommendation that the petition be dismissed. 15 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 17 2. For the reasons set forth above, the application for writ of habeas corpus will not be 18 || served. 19 3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, petitioner may file an amended petition 20 || for writ of habeas corpus. 21 4. Any amended petition must bear the case number assigned to this action and the title 22 || “Amended Petition.” 23 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the court’s form for application 24 || for writ of habeas corpus. 25 || DATED: June 17, 2021. ~ 26 Hhthtin— Clare ALLISON CLAIRE 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28