1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RICHARD H. CHU, Case No. 19-cv-04218-PJH

8 Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 8 10 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 11 Respondent.

12 13 Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 14 pursuant to

. The original petition was dismissed with leave to amend 15 and petitioner has filed an amended petition. 16 DISCUSSION 17 STANDARD OF REVIEW 18 This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person 19 in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in 20 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 21 § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges,

(1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet 22 heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott,

(1994). An 23 application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody 24 pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief available to 25 the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules 26 Governing § 2254 Cases,

. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the 27 petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” 1 Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine,

(1st Cir. 2 1970)). 3 LEGAL CLAIMS 4 As grounds for federal habeas relief petitioner seeks review pursuant to 5 Proposition 57 and that a parole eligibility date be set for him.1 California's Proposition 6 57, approved by voters in November 2016, makes parole more available for certain 7 felons convicted of nonviolent crimes. Cal. Const. art. I, § 32. 8 To the extent petitioner claims that California law has been violated and no parole 9 eligibility date has been set, any such claim is dismissed because federal habeas relief is 10 not available for state law errors. A “federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus to a 11 state prisoner ‘only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or 12 laws or treaties of the United States.’” Swarthout v. Cooke,

(2011) 13 (citations omitted). 14 Petitioner was also instructed to discuss what claims had been exhausted in state 15 court and was informed that this court can only consider claims that have been presented 16 to the California Supreme Court. See

(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy,

(1982). Petitioner has failed to address exhaustion in his amended petition. 18 To the extent petitioner could present a federal claim, any such claim appears to be 19 unexhausted. For all these reasons, this case is dismissed. If petitioner exhausts a 20 proper federal claim, he may file a new petition in this court. 21 CONCLUSION 22 1. The motion to amend is (Docket No. 9) is GRANTED and the court has 23 considered the amended petition 24 2. The petition is DISMISSED for the reasons set forth above. Because 25 reasonable jurists would not find the result here debatable, a certificate of appealability 26 (“COA”) is DENIED. See Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (standard for 27 1 COA). The clerk shall close this case. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: October 2, 2019 4 5 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 6 United States District Judge

7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27