(HC) Hatchett v. Clark ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CECIL JEROME HATCHETT, No. 2:23-CV-2845-DAD-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. and 14 KEN CLARK, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is Respondent’s motion to 19 dismiss, ECF No. 9. Petitioner has not filed an opposition. 20 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Petitioner was convicted in the Sacramento County Superior Court in 1992 and is 23 now challenging the 1992 sentence on the basis that it was enhanced by an unconstitutional 24 conviction. See ECF No. 1. Taking judicial notice of the Court files in the prior cases, see 25 Chandler v. U.S., 378 F.2d 906, 909 (9th Cir. 1967), this Court observes Petitioner has filed 26 previous federal habeas actions challenging this sentence.1 See ECF No. 9, pg. 2. However, 27 Petitioner was discharged from the sentence he received in his 1992 conviction long before this 28 1 2:16-cv-0412-KJM-CMK-P and 2:18-cv-01773-KJM-DB-P. 1 action and his previous petitions were filed. Therefore, his two previous habeas petitions were 2 dismissed by the court because Petitioner was not “in custody.” See id. 3 This action proceeds on the petition filed on December 6, 2023. See id. 4 5 II. DISCUSSION 6 In the unopposed motion to dismiss, Respondent argues that this action must be 7 dismissed because: (1) Petitioner continues to fail to satisfy the in-custody requirement; and (2) 8 fails to state a cognizable federal claim. See ECF No. 9. Respondent narrowly argues that 9 Petitioner’s challenge to his 1992 sentence, by reason of enhancement by an allegedly 10 unconstitutional conviction, is barred by the Supreme Court’s decision in Lackawanna County 11 District Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394 (2001). For the reasons discussed below, the Court 12 agrees. 13 In Lackawanna County, the Supreme Court held that habeas relief is unavailable 14 for state prisoners to challenge past convictions on the grounds that prior convictions were used to 15 enhance a current sentence. See Lackawanna, 532 U.S. at 396. This is due “to the need for 16 finality of convictions and ease of administration.” Id. at 402. Once a state court conviction is no 17 longer open to direct or collateral attack, it can be considered “conclusively valid” and “the 18 defendant may not challenge the enhanced sentence through a petition under § 2254 on the 19 ground that the prior conviction was unconstitutionally obtained.” Id. 20 The Court agrees with Respondent that the Lackawanna County principle applies 21 in this case. It is clear from his petition that Petitioner is challenging his previously expired 1992 22 sentence resulting from his 1992 conviction. See ECF No. 1. As factual support for his habeas 23 challenge, Petitioner argues a conviction from 1989 was unconstitutional and therefore 24 incorrectly used to enhance his 1992 sentence. See id. Like Lackawanna County, Petitioner’s 25 currently challenged 1992 sentence has expired for purposes of direct or collateral attack, as he is 26 no longer serving this sentence. Accordingly, Petitioner cannot turn to habeas relief to challenge 27 this 1992 conviction on the ground that it was enhanced by a prior allegedly unconstitutional 28 conviction. Because this Court finds that Petitioner cannot state a cognizable claim, the Court 1 | need not address Respondent’s argument that the “in-custody” requirement is not satisfied and 2 || recommend dismissal of this petition for failure to state a cognizable claim. 3 4 Il. CONCLUSION 5 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned hereby orders and recommends as 6 || follows: 7 1. It is RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s unopposed motion to dismiss, 8 || ECF No. 9, be granted for failure to state a cognizable claim. 9 2. It is ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for bail, ECF No. 11, is DENIED 10 || as moot and without prejudice to renewal should these findings and recommendations not be 11 || adopted. 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 13 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 14 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 15 || with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 16 || Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 17 Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 19 | Dated: May 14, 2024 Co 20 DENNIS M. COTA 7] UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28