(HC) Saterfield v. Matteson ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD SATERFIELD, Case No. 2:22-cv-01513-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 13 v. FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE SECTION 2254 14 GISELLE MATTESON, CLAIM AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 15 Respondent. ECF Nos. 1 & 2 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus 18 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After reviewing the petition, I find that it fails to state a viable federal 19 claim. I will give petitioner a chance to amend before recommending that this action be 20 dismissed. 21 The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 22 Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine 23 the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 24 petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); 25 Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 26 Petitioner raises three claims related to his two convictions for murder in the first degree. 27 First, he argues that, since he was twenty-one at the time of the offense, his sentence of life 28 without parole violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. 1 | ECFNo. 1 at 5. He is incorrect. In Graham vy. Florida, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth 2 | Amendment forbids a sentence of life without parole for juvenile nonhomicide offenders. 560 3 | US. 48, 74 (2010). This holding does nothing to aid petitioner, who was convicted of homicide. 4 | In Miller vy. Alabama, the Supreme Court held that a mandatory sentence of life without parole for 5 | those under 18 at the time of the crime violated the Eighth Amendment. 567 U.S. 460, 465 6 | (2012). Petitioner states that he was twenty-one at the time of the crime. 7 Petitioner’s other two claims fail for want of detail and context. He argues that his 8 | conviction was obtained by improper jury instructions on self-defense. ECF No. 1 at 5. He fails, 9 | however, to describe how the jury instructions were flawed. Similarly, he argues that the 10 | prosecutor committed misconduct by, among other things, misstating the law as to self-defense 11 and the reasonable doubt standard. Again, however, he does not say how the prosecutor’s 12 | conduct was improper. 13 Petitioner may, if he chooses, file an amended petition that addresses these issues. If he 14 | does not, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 15 It is ORDERED that: 16 1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 17 2. Petitioner may file an amended § 2254 petition within thirty days of this order’s 18 | entry. If he does not, I will recommend that the current petition be dismissed for the reasons 19 || stated in this order. 20 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a federal habeas form with this 21 | order. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ( q Sty — Dated: _ September 8, 2022 Q_-——_ 25 JEREMY D. PETERSON 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28