(HC) Mina v. Macomber ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILFREDO MINA, Case No. 1:23-cv-01665-SAB-HC 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 13 v. HABEAS CORPUS 14 JEFF MACOMBER, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT 15 Respondent. JUDGE 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 19 I. 20 BACKGROUND 21 On September 28, 2023, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in 22 this Court. (ECF No. 1.) On October 3, 2023, the petition was transferred to the Central District 23 of California because Petitioner wrote that the petition is challenging a judgment from the 24 Riverside County Superior Court. (ECF No. 2.) On November 29, 2023, the United States 25 District Court for the Central District of California ordered that the petition be transferred back 26 to the Eastern District “because Petitioner was convicted in the Madera County Superior Court, 27 as confirmed by the abstract of judgment attached to the Petitioner . . . and in the Petition he /// 1 challenges his sentence.” (ECF No. 7 at 1–2.)1 On November 30, 2023, the petition was 2 transferred. (ECF No. 8.) 3 II. 4 DISCUSSION 5 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 6 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 7 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 8 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 9 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 10 In the petition, Petitioner states that an “unauthorized sentence may be corrected anytime 11 for due process.” (ECF No. 1 at 13 (capitalization omitted).) Petitioner appears to assert that “his 12 sentence is unauthorized because of invalidated nonpunitive fines and fees under new authority 13 of AB 1869 and AB 177”2 and alleges that the superior court did not address this claim in its 14 denial of Petitioner’s state habeas petition and thus, the state court’s denial was “contrary to law 15 and [an] unreasonable determination of facts, which denied due process.” (Id. at 15.) 16 By statute, federal courts “shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in 17 behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he 18 is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 19 § 2254(a). “Section 2254(a)’s language permitting a habeas petition to be entertained ‘only on 20 the ground that [the petitioner] is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of 21 the United States,’ (emphasis added), explicitly requires a nexus between the petitioner’s claim 22 and the unlawful nature of the custody.” Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2010). 23 To the extent Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief based on the superior court’s failure to 24 address his claim regarding allegedly unlawful imposition of nonpunitive fines and fees in 25 26 1 Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page. 2 “In enacting AB 1869 on September 18, 2020, and AB 177 on September 23, 2021, the Legislature sought to 27 eliminate the range of administrative fees that agencies and courts are authorized to impose to fund elements of the criminal legal system and sought to eliminate all outstanding debt incurred as a result of the imposition of 1 denying Petitioner’s state habeas petition, the Court finds that such a claim is not cognizable 2 because “a petition alleging errors in the state post-conviction review process is not addressable 3 through [federal] habeas corpus proceedings.” Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir. 4 1989). Accord Cooper v. Neven, 641 F.3d 322, 331–32 (9th Cir. 2011). To the extent Petitioner 5 seeks federal habeas relief based on the allegedly unlawful imposition of nonpunitive fines and 6 fees, the Court finds that Petitioner’s challenge to the fines and fees “lacks any nexus, as required 7 by the plain text of § 2254(a), to his custody.” Bailey, 599 F.3d at 981. “Because courts do not 8 have jurisdiction over a habeas corpus petition brought pursuant to § 2254 challenging only a 9 restitution order,” and “the elimination or alteration of a money judgment . . . does not directly 10 impact—and is not directed at the source of the restraint on—[Petitioner’s] liberty,” the Court 11 finds that the petition should be dismissed. Id. at 984, 981. 12 III. 13 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 14 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of 15 habeas corpus be DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. 16 Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign this action to a District 17 Judge. 18 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court 19 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 20 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 21 Within THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may 22 file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 23 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned 24 District Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 25 § 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 26 /// 27 /// 1 | result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 2 | (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 5 Dated: _ December 19, 2023 ‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28