1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL PARKS, Case No. 2:20-cv-03267-JLS (AFM) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF 14 PATRICK EATON, Warden, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Respondent. 16 17 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on 18 file and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 19 (“Report”). Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of 20 the Report to which objections have been made. 21 Petitioner’s objections are overruled. With the exception of the following, 22 Petitioner’s objections do not warrant discussion as they are properly addressed in 23 the Report. 24 Petitioner complains that the Report fails to address his allegation that the trial 25 court did not obtain a written waiver of his right to be present at his trial as required 26 by California law. (ECF No. 20 at 1-2.) To begin with, Petitioner’s assertion is 27 factually incorrect. The Report addressed his contention, noting that his allegations 28 did not raise a question about the federal constitutional validity of his waiver, but 1 || rather boiled down to a procedural argument challenging the trial court’s failure to 2 || obtain a formal waiver. (ECF No. 18 at 17-18.) Furthermore, Petitioner’s objection 3 || relies upon an alleged violation of section 977 of the California Penal Code. Federal 4 || habeas corpus relief, however, 1s available only when a petitioner has been convicted 5 || or sentenced in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. It 6 || is not available for errors in the interpretation or application of state law. Swarthout 7 || v. Cooke,

, 219 (2011); Estelle v. McGuire,

(1991). 8 | A violation of California’s rule regarding a written waiver is not grounds for federal 3 || relief. Thus, even assuming the trial court erred by failing to properly apply the 10 || California statute, this would not alter the conclusion that the state court’s 11 || determination of Petitioner’s claim was neither an unreasonable application of 12 || federal law nor an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the record. 13 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered denying the 14 |) Petition and dismissing the action with prejudice. 15 16 |} DATED: March 22, 2021 | 7 a 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28