- 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 EUREKA DIVISION 4 5 JOEL V. LOPEZ, Case No. 20-cv-00572-RMI 6 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 7 v. WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 8 RALPH DIAZ, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 12 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in Monterey County, so venue is proper here. See 28 13 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Petitioner has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and consented to the 14 jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. (Dkts. 2, 5). 15 DISCUSSION 16 Standard of Review 17 This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 18 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 19 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. 20 Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading 21 requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of 22 habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court 23 must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner . . . [and] state the facts 24 supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 25 “[N]otice pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real 26 possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 27 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). 1 Legal Claims 2 Petitioner was convicted and sentenced in March 2014 and did not file an appeal. Pet. at 3 14. On October 11, 2017, the California Governor approved Senate Bill 620 which amended Penal 4 Code section 12022.53 and allowed trial courts at the time of sentencing to strike or dismiss a 5 firearms enhancement. Id. The law became effective on January 1, 2018. Id. Petitioner sought, in 6 state court, to have his sentence reduced pursuant to Senate Bill 620. Id. at 2-3. The state courts 7 denied relief. Id. Petitioner then filed this federal petition arguing that his Equal Protection rights 8 under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated. Id. at 7-11. 9 The state court denied relief noting that penal statutes are only retroactive to cases that 10 have not reached final judgement and Petitioner’s case reached final judgment several years before 11 Senate Bill 620 was enacted. Id. at 14. The state court also cited to numerous cases in support of 12 the notion that California courts have repeatedly held the refusal to apply a statute retroactively 13 does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 15. 14 Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief claiming he is entitled to a modified sentence 15 pursuant to Senate Bill 620 and the denial of the resentencing violates the Fourteenth Amendment. 16 This claim only involves the application of state sentencing laws and does not give rise to a federal 17 question cognizable on federal habeas review. See Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 469 (9th Cir. 18 1994) (“Absent a showing of fundamental unfairness, a state court’s misapplication of its own 19 sentencing laws does not justify federal habeas relief.”). The fact that Petitioner characterizes this 20 claim as a violation of his federal constitutional rights, without more, is not sufficient. See 21 Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996) (finding that a litigant cannot “transform a 22 state-law issue into a federal one merely by asserting a violation of due process”). 23 This court is bound by the state court’s interpretation of state sentencing laws. While 24 Petitioner argues his federal Equal Protection rights have been violated, that claim is based on 25 state sentencing laws which is insufficient to present a viable federal claim. Other district courts 26 have reached the same conclusion and found that a state court’s alleged misapplication of Senate 27 Bill 620 does not present a federal habeas claim. See, e.g., Maldonado v. Koenig, No. 1:19-cv- 1 to a state court’s application of SB 620 does not present a cognizable federal habeas claim); 2 Anderson v. Pfeiffer, No. 2:18-CV-1749-KJM-DMC-P, 2019 WL 2026509, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 3 8, 2019) (same); Williams v. Diaz, 1:18-cv-01728-SKO (HC), 2019 WL 399223, at *1-2 (E.D. 4 Cal. Jan. 30, 2019) (same). This petition is dismissed, and Petitioner will be provided one 5 opportunity to amend these deficiencies. 6 CONCLUSION 7 The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. 2) is GRANTED. The petition is 8 DISMISSED with leave to amend. The amended petition must be filed within twenty-eight days 9 of service of this order, and carry the words AMENDED PETITION on the first page. Failure to 10 || amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of the petition. 11 Additionally, Petitioner must keep the court informed of any change of address and must 12 || comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of 5 13 this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez 14 v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (Sth Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 Dated: March 30, 2020 Ml Z — 18 ROBERT M. ILLMAN 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Document Info
Docket Number: 3:20-cv-00572
Filed Date: 3/30/2020
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/20/2024