(HC) Rowel v. Martinez ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 SAMUEL D. ROWEL, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-00515-AWI-SKO (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO ) DISMISS PETITION FOR LACK OF HABEAS 13 v. ) JURISDICTION ) 14 ) [TWENTY-ONE DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE] 15 L. MARTINEZ, Warden, ) ) 16 Respondent. ) ) 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After conducting a preliminary screening of the petition, it appears that 20 the petition fails to present any cognizable grounds for relief. Therefore, the Court will recommend 21 that the petition be SUMMARILY DISMISSED. 22 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 23 On January 19, 2016, in Kern County Superior Court, Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of 24 first degree burglary, two counts of inflicting corporal injuries, and one count of assault with a deadly 25 weapon. (Doc. 1 at 30.) On February 17, 2016, he was sentenced to a total term of 29 years and 8 26 months. (Doc. 1 at 30.) Petitioner did not appeal the judgment and his conviction became final on 27 April 17, 2016. (Doc. 1 at 19.) 28 1 On June 2, 2021, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Kern County 2 Superior Court seeking resentencing under (1) California Assembly Bill 1618, and (2) California 3 Senate Bills 1393 and 620. (Doc. 1 at 18.) The petition was rejected in a reasoned decision on June 4 16, 2021. (Doc. 1 at 18-21.) 5 On March 17, 2022, Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition in the United States 6 District Court for the Northern District of California. Because venue is proper in the Eastern District, 7 the Northern District transferred the petition to this Court on April 28, 2022. 8 II. DISCUSSION 9 A. Preliminary Review of Petition 10 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary 11 review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must summarily dismiss a petition “[i]f it 12 plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in 13 the district court . . . .” Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990). The Advisory 14 Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, 15 either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an 16 answer to the petition has been filed. 17 B. Failure to State a Cognizable Federal Claim 18 The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) states: 19 The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to a 20 judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 21 22 (emphasis added). See also Rule 1 to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 23 District Court. The Supreme Court has held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a 24 person in custody upon the legality of that custody . . .” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 25 (1973). 26 Furthermore, in order to succeed in a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner must 27 demonstrate that the adjudication of his claim in state court 28 1 (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United 2 States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 3 4 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1),(2). 5 It is well-settled that federal habeas relief is not available to state prisoners challenging state 6 law. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991) (“We have stated many times that federal habeas 7 corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law); Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 8 1997) (“alleged errors in the application of state law are not cognizable in federal habeas corpus” 9 proceedings). 10 Petitioner claims that California Assembly Bill 1618 and California Senate Bills 1393 and 620 11 should apply to his case, and various sentencing enhancements he received as part of his sentence 12 should be stricken. The state courts determined that the California bills are inapplicable to his case, 13 and he is statutorily ineligible for resentencing. Petitioner is challenging the state court’s application 14 of state sentencing laws. Such a claim does not give rise to a federal question cognizable on federal 15 habeas review. Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764 (1990); Sturm v. California Youth Authority, 395 F.2d 16 446, 448 (9th Cir. 1967) (“a state court’s interpretation of its [sentencing] statute does not raise a 17 federal question”). This Court is bound by the state court’s interpretation of how the state sentencing 18 statutes apply to convictions such as Petitioner’s conviction. Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 19 (2005) (per curiam). Petitioner therefore fails to state a cognizable federal habeas claim, and the 20 petition should be dismissed. 21 III. RECOMMENDATION 22 For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of 23 Habeas Corpus be SUMMARILY DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 24 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 25 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 26 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 27 twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections with the 28 court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 1 Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling 2 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the 3 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 4 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: June 2, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28