(HC) Fritz v. State of CA ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMAL D. FRITZ, No. 2:24-cv-2563 AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and paid the filing fee. 19 I. Background 20 In 2015, petitioner was found guilty of one count of annoying or molesting a child under 21 18, unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, and possession of obscene matter. ECF No. 1 at 1; 22 People v. Fritz, No. C098577, 2024 WL 1264921, at *1, 2024 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1911, at 23 *2 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2024). Petitioner challenges his conviction on the ground that he is 24 eligible for resentencing and the dismissal of enhancements under Assembly Bill (AB) 600, due 25 to changes in the law and because his current offense is non-violent. ECF No. 1 at 5, 17. 26 II. Discussion 27 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 28 (Habeas Rules) requires the court to summarily dismiss a habeas petition, “[i]f it plainly appears 1 from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district 2 court.” As set forth below, the petition appears to be unexhausted and fails to state a cognizable 3 claim for relief. 4 A petitioner may seek federal habeas relief from a state-court conviction or sentence “only 5 on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 6 States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Matters relating solely to the interpretation or application of state 7 law are not cognizable on federal habeas review. Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990) 8 (“[F]ederal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.” (citations omitted)). 9 “A.B. 600 amended section 1172.1 to allow a trial court, on its own motion, to recall a 10 sentence and resentence a defendant when ‘applicable sentencing laws at the time of the original 11 sentencing are subsequently changed by new statutory authority or case law.’” People v. Dain, 99 12 Cal. App. 5th 399, 412 (2024) (quoting Cal. Penal Code § 1172.1(a)(1)). After petitioner moved 13 for recall and resentencing, the state court determined that petitioner was not entitled to have his 14 sentence recalled. See Fritz, 2024 WL 1264921, at *4, 2024 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1911, at 15 *9. Accordingly, petitioner’s claim that he is eligible to, and therefore should, be resentenced 16 under AB 600 is not cognizable because it is purely a question of state law interpretation. 17 Any question as to the applicability of AB 600 to petitioner does not state a claim for 18 federal habeas relief because challenges to a state court’s interpretation or application of state 19 sentencing laws does not give rise to a federal question cognizable in federal habeas. Estelle v. 20 McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (“[I]t is not the province of a federal habeas court to 21 reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions.” (citation omitted)); Middleton, 768 22 F.2d at 1085 (habeas relief “is unavailable for alleged error in the interpretation or application of 23 state law” (citation omitted)); Miller v. Vasquez, 868 F.2d 1116, 1118-19 (9th Cir. 1989) 24 (declining to address “[w]hether assault with a deadly weapon qualifies as a ‘serious felony’ 25 under California’s sentence enhancement provisions [because it] is a question of state sentencing 26 law” (citation omitted)). The exception is if “the state court’s finding was so arbitrary or 27 capricious as to constitute an independent due process or Eighth Amendment violation.” Lewis, 28 497 U.S. at 780 (citation omitted). However, petitioner makes no showing that the state court 1 | acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. 2 CONCLUSION 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly 4 || assign a United States District Judge to this action. 5 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas 6 || corpus be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 9 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 10 || objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 11 || Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” If petitioner files objections, he shall also address 12 | whether a certificate of appealability should issue and, if so, why and as to which issues. See 28 13 | U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 14 || may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 15 | Cir. 1991). 16 | DATED: November 12, 2024 * 17 Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28