1 2 3 O 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RANDELL ALBERT HOPKINS, Case No. 5:20-cv-01267-DOC-KES 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDE R DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 14 HONORABLE DAVID S. COHN, HABEAS CORPUS 15 et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 I.

20 INTRODUCTION 21 Petitioner Randell A. Hopkins, an inmate at Corcoran State Prison, filed a 22 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody under 28 U.S.C. 23 § 2254. In 2005, Petitioner was convicted of burglary after pleading guilty in San 24 Bernardino County Superior Court (“SBSC”) case no. FVI018838. 25 This Court is required to review and dismiss the Petition if “it plainly appears 26 from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to 27 relief....” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 28 1 Courts. The Court finds that Petitioner has not alleged that “he is in custody in 2 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 3 § 2254(a). Granting leave to amend the Petition would be futile, because “it 4 appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted.” 5 Jarvis v. Nelson,

(9th Cir. 1971). 6 II. 7 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 8 The Court summarizes the procedural history of Plaintiff’s criminal 9 prosecution based on the SBSC’s online records,1 which are subject to judicial 10 notice. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (“The court may judicially notice a fact that is 11 not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily 12 determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”); 13 Harris v. Cty. of Orange,

(9th Cir. 2012) (“We may take 14 judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record … including documents on 15 file in federal or state courts.”). 16 In March 2004, Petitioner was charged with robbery and burglary with 17 enhancements for prior felony convictions. Petitioner initially retained counsel, but 18 in December 2004, the public defender was appointed to represent him. In 19 February 2005, the SBSC declared a doubt as to Petitioner’s mental competence. 20 In April 2005, after evaluation, Petitioner was found competent to stand trial. 21 Petitioner continually clashed with his lawyers, filing a motion to discharge 22 appointed counsel under People v. Marsden,

(1970) and a motion to 23 represent himself under Faretta v. California,

(1975). In August 24 2005, about a month before trial was set to begin, the SBSC granted his motion to 25 represent himself. 26 27 1 https://www.sb-court.org/divisions/civil-general-information/court-case- information-and-document-sales 28 1 On the first day of trial in September 2005, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty 2 to the burglary charge and admitted two priors, causing the prosecution to dismiss 3 the robbery charge. Petitioner was sentenced to 22 years in prison. He is currently 4 housed at California State Prison, Corcoran.2 5 Petitioner did not attempt to appeal until April 2006, and his appeal was 6 deemed defective. Between 2006 and 2015, Petitioner filed multiple challenges to 7 his conviction and sentence, culminating in a June 2015 order by the SBSC 8 deeming Petitioner a vexatious litigant. 9 III. 10 DISCUSSION 11 The Petition fails to demonstrate that Petitioner is entitled to relief for 12 multiple reasons, including the following: 13 (1) Per the caption, the Petition names multiple defendants, including 14 SBSC Judge David Cohn, San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael A. 15 Ramos, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, the Los Angeles Child 16 Support Services Department, the “parole region administrators” and the 17 “prisoners’ rights union.” (Pet. at 1.) None of these individuals or entities appear 18 to be the proper respondent for a habeas action under § 2254. See Advisory 19 Committee Notes, Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 and 2255 Cases 20 in the U.S. District Courts (noting that the proper respondent in a habeas action is 21 “the state officer who has custody” of the petitioner, which includes “either the 22 warden of the institution in which the petitioner is incarcerated … or the chief 23 officer in charge of state penal institutions”); see also Rumsfeld v. Padilla,

426, 450 n.18 (2004) (“Congress has authorized § 2254 petitioners challenging 25 present physical custody to name either the warden or the chief state penal officer 26

27 2 See CDCR Inmate Locator, Public Inmate Locator System, https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/. 28 1 as a respondent.”). 2 (2) Petitioner checked boxes on the habeas form indicating that the 3 Petition challenges a conviction, sentence, prison discipline, a parole problem, and 4 “other.” (Pet. at 2.) He is not on parole, and it is unclear what prison disciplinary 5 action he might be challenging. 6 (3) Petitioner lists five grounds for relief, but none of them demonstrate 7 that his custody violates federal law: 8 a. Ground 1 lists philosophical topics for consideration rather than 9 legal grounds for habeas relief (e.g., “the role of prisons, 10 critiques of historical reason, history of madness”). (Id. at 5) 11 b. Ground 2 alleges that Petitioner’s “conviction [was] obtained by 12 use of [a] coerced confession and denial of effective assistance 13 of counsel.” However, Petitioner was pro se when he entered 14 his guilty plea. The supporting facts provided (i.e., the 15 prosecution failed to timely provide a copy of his indictment and 16 “CLETUS” discovery) do not suggest that his guilty plea was 17 involuntary. (Id. at 5.) 18 c. Ground 3 alleges that Petitioner’s guilty plea was involuntary. 19 The supporting facts, however, are nonsensical. Petitioner 20 alleges, “This situation is tied into Texas and Texas law 21 enforcement. My badge … came out of my pocket on at least 3 22 different occasions to pay Mr. Hankins for his services in Texas 23 and it’s attached to my bank accounts....” (Id. at 6.) 24 d. Ground 4 alleges that the prosecution failed to disclose 25 favorable evidence, referring to the post-plea disclosure of 26 “evidence associated to indictment [sic].” Petitioner appears to 27 allege entitlement “$22.5 Billion” in damages due to this late 28 disclosure. (Id. at 6.) A habeas action generally cannot be used 1 to seek damages. See Preiser v. Rodriguez,

, 2

,

(1973) (“If a state 3 prisoner is seeking damages, he is attacking something other 4 than the fact or length of his confinement, and he is seeking 5 something other than immediate or more speedy release—the 6 traditional purpose of habeas corpus.”). 7 e. Ground 5 alleges that his conviction/sentence violates double 8 jeopardy. (Pet. at 6.) Petitioner seems to be arguing that 9 enhancing criminal sentences based on prior convictions is 10 unconstitutional. (Id., citing California Penal Code section 667.) 11 It is not. See Monge v. California,

(1998) 12 (“An enhanced sentence imposed on a persistent offender thus 13 ‘is not to be viewed as either a new jeopardy or additional 14 penalty for the earlier crimes’ but as ‘a stiffened penalty for the 15 latest crime, which is considered to be an aggravated offense 16 because a repetitive one.’”) (citation omitted). Ground 5 also 17 alleges, “He, the judge, was also associated to Texas [sic], so he 18 denied me my right of appeal.” (Pet. at 6.) This may be a 19 reference to a California Court of Appeal order (attached to the 20 petition) which denied his writ of habeas corpus filed in 21 September 2010; per that order, Petitioner asked the Court of 22 Appeal to deem a late notice of appeal timely. (Id. at 11.) It is 23 unclear why Petitioner believes that violated the constitution or 24 other federal law. 25 (4) Petitioner attaches correspondence arguing he is entitled to early 26 parole consideration under California’s Proposition 57 and “to create a business.” 27 (Id. at 15.) Yet none of the grounds alleged in the Petition seek relief under 28 Proposition 57. Moreover, such a claim would need to be raised in a civil rights 1 | complaint rather than a habeas petition. See, e.g., Travers v. California, No. 17-cv- 2 | 06126,

at *7-8,

at *3 (N.D. Cal. 3 | Feb. 5, 2018) (finding that success on such a claim would not “necessarily lead to 4 | immediate or speedier release from custody and therefore falls outside the core of 5 | habeas corpus ... because Proposition 57 (if it applies to him) only makes him 6 | eligible for parole consideration, and does not command his release from □□□□□□□□□ 7 (5) Petitioner attaches another letter describing an SBSC habeas petition 8 || he has filed raising issues including a list of apparently unrelated and nonsensical 9 | topics (e.g., “things to do while you are waiting, smart goals, types of jobs,” “Mark 10 | Stone,” and “California REAL ID’). (Pet. at 19.) 11 IV. 12 CONCLUSION 13 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition is 14 | dismissed without leave to amend. Ahn 0 Cut 16 | DATED: July 1, 2020 17 DAVID O. CARTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 | Presented by: TwsE Sorte 21 | KAREN E. SCOTT 47 | United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28