(HC) Williams v. Tuolumne County Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FREDERICK WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00082-SAB-HC 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 13 v. HABEAS CORPUS TUOLUMNE COUNTY COURT, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT 15 Respondent. JUDGE 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

19 I.

20 DISCUSSION 21 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” See McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994).

26 By statute, federal courts “shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). “[T]he second use of ‘in custody’ in the statute requires literally that the person applying for the writ is contending that he is ‘in custody’ in violation of the Constitution or other federal laws.” Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 979 (9th Cir. 2010) (emphasis added). See Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 439 n.3 (2000).

5 In the instant petition, Petitioner asserts that his sentence violates current California sentencing law, as amended by Senate Bill 1393. (ECF No. 1 at 5–6).1 Petitioner asks this Court “to modify his sentence under the current sentencing law.” (Id. at 5). This Court does not have jurisdiction to modify Petitioner’s sentence. Whether Petitioner’s sentence is lawful under the California Penal Code is an issue of state law, and errors of state law do not warrant federal habeas corpus relief.2 See Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1, 5 (2010) (per curiam) (“[I]t is only noncompliance with federal law that renders a State’s criminal judgment susceptible to collateral attack in the federal courts.”); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991) (“We have stated many times that ‘federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.’ Today, we reemphasize that it is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions.” (citations omitted)).

16 II.

17 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 18 Accordingly, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim.

20 Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly ASSIGN this action to a District Judge.

22 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

1 | captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned | United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 | U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 5 | 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Zl Se g | Dated: _ January 30, 2020 OF 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE