Woods v. Pollard ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DARYL K. WOODS, Case No.: 21-cv-111-MMA (WVG) 11 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 12 Petitioner, RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED v. STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; 13 WARDEN POLLARD, [Doc. No. 9] 14 GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 15 Respondent. MOTION TO DISMISS 16 [Doc. No. 7] 17 18 19 On January 19, 2021, Daryl K. Woods (“Petitioner”) filed a habeas corpus petition 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Doc. No. 1. Petitioner constitutionally challenges his 21 current imprisonment for six counts of second-degree robbery and one count of a serious 22 felony. See Doc. No. 1. Petitioner claims his underlying convictions are nonviolent in 23 nature and thus asserts he is eligible for early parole under California Proposition 57 and 24 California Assembly Bill 965. See id. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, to which 25 Petitioner opposed. See Doc. Nos. 7, 8. United States Magistrate Judge William V. 26 Gallo issued a detailed and well-reasoned Report recommending that the Court grant 27 Respondent’s motion to dismiss. See Doc. No. 9 (the “R&R”). Petitioner timely filed an 28 objection. See Doc. No. 10. For the reasons set forth below, the Court, ADOPTS the 1 R&R, GRANTS Respondent’s motion, and DISMISSES this action. 2 I. BACKGROUND 3 On January 30, 2008, Petitioner entered a no contest plea to six counts of second- 4 degree robbery and one count of a serious felony. See Doc. No. 1. The court sentenced 5 Petitioner to twenty-seven years in prison. See id. Petitioner is currently detained at the 6 Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, CA. See id. 7 A. Direct Appeal 8 Petitioner first appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, raising 9 the following claim: “error and for the court to review the record.” See id. at 2. On 10 August 28, 2008, the California Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction. See id. 11 B. State Habeas Petition 12 Thereafter, Petitioner filed three habeas corpus petitions in the California Superior 13 Court. See id. at 17–18. Petitioner claimed due process violations, insufficient evidence, 14 sentencing errors, ineffective assistance of counsel, resentencing eligibility under 15 Proposition 47, and early non-violent parole consideration eligibility under Proposition 16 57. See id. The Superior Court denied his petitions. See id at 17–21. 17 Petitioner then filed a habeas corpus petition in the California Court of Appeal. He 18 stated the following grounds: “(1) reclassification of his robbery convictions as 19 misdemeanors and resentencing under Proposition 47; (2) recall of his sentence under 20 Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1); and parole consideration under Proposition 21 57.” Id. at 31. The Court of Appeal denied his petition on August 25, 2020. See id at 22 31–33. 23 On September 17, 2020, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the California 24 Supreme Court, raising the following grounds: “Proposition 47; People v. DeHoyos, 25 (2018) . . . Assembly Bill 1812 . . . Proposition 57.” See id. at 6. On December 16, 2020, 26 the California Supreme Court, which sat en banc, denied his habeas corpus petition. See 27 id. at 8. 28 1 C. Federal Habeas Petition 2 On January 19, 2021, Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas corpus petition. 3 See id. Petitioner asserts the crimes underlying his conviction are nonviolent and thus 4 “Proposition 57, and Assembly Bill 965 authorizes early release date for Petitioner.” See 5 id. at 5. 6 II. LEGAL STANDARD 7 A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and 8 recommendation on dispositive matters. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Pursuant to Rule 72 9 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court must make a de novo determination of any part of 10 the Magistrate Judge’s disposition to which a party has properly objected. See id.; see 11 also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The 12 Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 13 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United 14 States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). 15 III. DISCUSSION 16 Pursuant to 28 USC § 2254, a federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus to a 17 state prisoner if his custody status violates the Constitution or the laws or treaties of the 18 United States. See 28 USC § 2254. Rule Four of the Rules Governing section 2254 19 states: “If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner 20 is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition.” Rule 4, 21 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 22 Petitioner claims his current imprisonment violates the Constitution because he has 23 not been considered for early parole despite his alleged eligibility under California 24 Proposition 57 and Assembly Bill 965.1 See Doc. No. 1 at 5. Judge Gallo concluded that 25 Petitioner fails to assert any federal law violations. See R&R at 5–7. Judge Gallo further 26 27 1 As Judge Gallo notes, Proposition 57 and State Assembly Bill 965 are codified in California law, Cal. 28 1 determined that the potential relief Petitioner seeks would not necessarily result in a 2 shortened sentence or immediate release, and thus Petitioner’s claim falls outside habeas 3 corpus review. See id. at 7–9. Accordingly, Judge Gallo recommends the Court grant 4 Respondent’s motion to dismiss. See id. at 9. Petitioner objects to the R&R. See Doc. 5 No. 10. 6 A. Petitioner Does Not State a Constitutional Claim 7 Petitioner must state that his custody status violates a federal right in order to be 8 entitled to federal habeas review. See Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1, 5 (2010). If the 9 petition fails to present a federal claim, the court may dismiss the petition for failure to 10 state a claim. See O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 2001). A petitioner 11 fails to state a federal claim if they only raise state law errors which do not lie within 12 federal habeas corpus review. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011). Here, 13 Petitioner claims his federal rights have been violated through his improper exclusion 14 from nonviolent parole consideration under California Proposition 57 and Assembly Bill 15 965. See Doc. No. 1 at 5. Proposition 57 and Assembly Bill 965 are both pieces of state 16 legislation, and thus their applicability to Petitioner is solely a state law issue. Therefore, 17 Judge Gallo correctly concluded that because Petitioner’s claim rests solely in state law, 18 it does not fall within federal habeas review. See R&R at 5; see also Doc. No. 1 at 5; 19 Swarthout, 562 U.S. at 219. 20 Moreover, a petitioner fails to state a federal claim if they simply allege a violation 21 of the general notion of fairness or a federal procedural right. See Middleton v. Cupp, 22 768 F.2d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985). A petitioner has the burden of alleging specific 23 facts that show the involvement of a federal right. See O’Bremski, 915F.2d at 420. Here, 24 Petitioner claims that the state’s failure to consider him for nonviolent parole has resulted 25 in a “Federal Due Process Violation.” Doc. No. 1 at 5. However, this general assertion 26 of a federal due process violation, without any explanation as to how his rights were 27 violated, is not sufficient to assert a Constitutional violation. See, e.g., Middleton, 768 28 F.2d at 1085; Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, Judge Gallo 1 also correctly determined that Petitioner fails to articulate any specific federal rights 2 violations. See R&R at 5–7; see also Doc. No. 1 at 5. 3 Accordingly, Judge Gallo correctly concluded that Petitioner’s habeas claim is 4 faulty due to his reliance on state law and failure to state a cognizable federal claim. See 5 R&R at 5–7; see also Doc. No. 1 at 5. Petitioner does not address this flaw, nor does he 6 further articulate how his federal due process rights were violated, in his objection to 7 Judge Gallo’s R&R. See Doc. No. 10. Thus, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and 8 GRANTS Respondent’s motion to dismiss on this basis. 9 B. Petitioner’s Claim Falls Outside the Core of Habeas Corpus 10 Further, a state prisoner’s sole avenue to “[c]hallenge the validity of any 11 confinement or . . . its duration” is a habeas corpus petition. Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 12 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016). If the habeas petition’s success would not “necessarily lead to 13 his immediate or earlier release from confinement, [the] claim does not fall within ‘the 14 core of habeas corpus.’” Id at 935. 15 As noted above, Petitioner asserts that under Proposition 57 and Assembly Bill 16 965, he is eligible for early parole consideration because his underlying convictions are 17 nonviolent. See Doc. No. 1 at 5. However, even if Petitioner’s contention is valid, he 18 would only be entitled to a parole consideration hearing, not an immediate release from 19 prison. See Smith v. Pearman, No. 19-CV-03683-SI, 2019 WL 4918259, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 20 Oct. 4, 2019) (finding that because success of petitioner’s claim would not necessarily 21 lead to immediate or speedier release from custody, it falls outside the core of habeas 22 corpus), see also Cal. Penal Code § 3051. Thus, as Judge Gallo correctly concluded, 23 Petitioner’s claim is not within the core of habeas corpus. See R&R at 7–9; see also Doc. 24 No. 1 at 5. In his opposition, Petitioner does not address how the relief he seeks would 25 lead to his immediate or speedy release. See generally Doc. No. 10. Therefore, the Court 26 concludes that Petitioner’s claim falls outside the core of habeas corpus, providing an 27 alternative reason to dismiss the petition. 28 IV. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS Judge Gallo’s Report and 3 ||Recommendation in its entirety, GRANTS Respondent’s motion, and DISMISSES the 4 || petition. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: October 25, 2021 8 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28