1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 WAYNE WEST, ) Case No. 2:21-cv-03727-CJC-JDE ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING ) 13 v. ) ACTION ) 14 CRAIG KOENIG, Warden, ) ) 15 Respondent. ) ) 16 17 I. 18 INTRODUCTION 19 On April 19, 2021,1 Petitioner Wayne West (“Petitioner”) constructively 20 filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Dkt. 21 1, “Petition” or “Pet.”) and a supporting Memorandum (Dkt. 2, “Mem.”), 22 raising a single ground for relief. 23 1 Under the “mailbox rule,” “a legal document is deemed filed on the date a 24 petitioner delivers it to the prison authorities for filing by mail.” Lott v. Mueller, 304

, 921 (9th Cir. 2002). In the absence of evidence to the contrary, courts have treated a petition as delivered to prison authorities on the date the petition is signed. 26 See Roberts v. Marshall,

, 770 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010). Here, for purposes of 27 this Order, the Court will afford Petitioner the benefit of the mailbox rule and deems the Petition to have been “filed” on April 19, 2021. 28 1 On May 12, 2021, the assigned Magistrate Judge, after screening the 2 Petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 3 States District Courts (“Habeas Rules”), issued an order finding that the 4 Petition appeared to be untimely and seek relief that is not cognizable on 5 federal habeas review and directing Petitioner to show cause why the action 6 should not be dismissed. Dkt. 7 (“OSC”). On July 19, 2021, Petitioner filed a 7 Response to the OSC arguing that the Petition was timely, but not responding 8 to the OSC’s conclusion that the Petition appeared to be not cognizable. 9 For the reasons set forth below, the Court summarily dismisses the 10 Petition as it seeks relief that is not cognizable on federal habeas review. 11 II. 12 PETITIONER’S CLAIM 13 The sole claim raised in the Petition is Petitioner’s assertion that the state 14 courts improperly denied his March 19, 2019 motion for modification of his 15 sentence under California Senate Bill 1393 (“SB 1393”), which, according to 16 Petitioner, became effective on January 1, 2019, and gave California trial 17 courts the discretion to dismiss sentencing enhancements based upon prior 18 convictions for serious felonies. See Pet. at 6; Mem. at 1-4. 19 III. 20 DISCUSSION 21 Under Rule 4 of the Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 22 in the United States District Courts (“Habeas Rules”), the Court must review 23 the Petition and, if it plainly appears from the Petition and any attached 24 exhibits that the Petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court must dismiss the 25 Petition. Here, the Petition plainly appears to be non-cognizable on federal 26 habeas review and therefore subject to dismissal under Rule 4. 27 28 2 1 Petitioner’s sole claim is based solely on an alleged violation of state law. 2 “In conducting habeas review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a 3 conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 4 Estelle v. McGuire,

(1991); Smith v. Phillips,

, 5 221 (1982) (“A federally issued writ of habeas corpus, of course, reaches only 6 convictions obtained in violation of some provision of the United States 7 Constitution.”). Federal habeas relief is not available for errors of state law. 8 See

(a); McGuire,

. 9 Petitioner claims he did not receive a resentencing in violation of a new 10 state law. Petitioner cites only state law in support of his claim and identifies 11 no federal constitutional violation. Further, several district courts have found 12 that habeas claims based on failures to resentence under SB 1393 “do[ ] not 13 state a claim for federal habeas relief.” Bush v. Davis,

, at *2 14 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2020); see also Burchett v. Martel,

, at *2, 15 report and recommendation adopted by

(C.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 16 2020) (petitioner's allegations regarding SB 1393 involve an alleged 17 misapplication of state law and “[a]s such, they fail to state a cognizable 18 federal claim.”); O'Neil v. Burton,

, at *2, report and 19 recommendation adopted by

(E.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2020) 20 (“petitioner's effort to obtain the benefit of California Senate Bill 1393 21 implicates state law only,” and therefore federal habeas relief is unavailable); 22 McKinney v. Pfeiffer,

, at *3, report and recommendation 23 adopted by

(C.D. Cal Oct. 24, 2019) (petitioner's citation to 24 SB 1393 is a state law claim for relief and therefore is excluded from federal 25 habeas review). 26 Accordingly, the sole ground for relief asserted in the Petition is not 27 cognizable on federal habeas review and subject to summary dismissal. 28 3 1 || Petitioner was advised of the defect in the OSC and, despite filing a Response 2 the OSC, did not attempt to demonstrate that his claim is cognizable upon 3 federal habeas review. The Court finds it plainly apparent that the sole claim 4 || raised in the Petition is not cognizable and subject to dismissal under Rule 4 of 5 ||the Habeas Rules. 6 IV. 7 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 8 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 9 1. This action is summarily dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 10 || Rule 4 of the Habeas Rules; and 11 2. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. 12 13 14 || Dated: August 4, 2021 is Ke Lo 16 4—— _ f/ Cf 17 CORMAC J. GARNEY United States District Judge

19 || Presented By: 20

99 ||J D. EARLY 33 nited States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28