Houston v. Howell ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 * * * 9 MATTHEW HOUSTON, Case No. 2:19-cv-01475-GMN-EJY 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. 11 JERRY HOWELL, et al., 12 Respondents. 13 14 Petitioner Matthew Houston has submitted a pro se petition for writ of habeas 15 corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 1-1). His application to proceed in 16 forma pauperis is granted. The court has reviewed the petition pursuant to Habeas 17 Rule 4 and finds that it must be dismissed for failure to state a claim cognizable in 18 federal habeas corpus. 19 This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person 20 in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in 21 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 22 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Alleged errors in the interpretation or application of state law do not 23 warrant habeas relief. Hubbart v. Knapp, 379 F.3d 773, 779-80 (9th Cir. 2004). 24 Here, Houston argues that he was charged and convicted of a felony when he 25 should have been charged with a misdemeanor and also argues that his previous 26 judgments of convictions were the result of malicious prosecution. These are state-law 27 issues. They are not cognizable in federal habeas. Further, Houston has now been paroled; his claims that he was kept in prison past his parole date and that his bail was 1 excessive are now moot (see also Case No. 2:19-cv-01360-RFB-VCF, ECF No. 15). 2 Accordingly, this petition is dismissed for failure to state a claim cognizable in federal 3 habeas corpus.1 4 The court will not issue a certificate of appealability, as reasonable jurists would 5 not debate the dismissal of this petition. 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s application to proceed in forma 7 pauperis (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall detach and file the petition (ECF 9 No. 1-1). 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is DISMISSED for failure to state a 11 claim cognizable in federal habeas corpus. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motions for extension of time and 14 motion to compel (ECF Nos. 3 and 6) are both DENIED as moot. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and 16 close this case. 17 18 DATED: 10 October 2019. 19 20 GLORIA M. NAVARRO 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 The court also notes that Houston states on the face of his petition that he is currently pursuing state postconviction relief; thus, he may not have exhausted his claims in state court. While not entirely clear, it