(HC) Roberson v. People of the State of CA

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARLON ROBERSON, Case No. 2:22-cv-01557-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 13 v. FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE SECTION 2254 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CLAIM AND GRANTING LEAVE TO CALIFORNIA & S. PEERY, AMEND WITHIN THIRTY DAYS Respondents. ECF Nos. 1 & 6 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After reviewing the petition, I find that it fails to state a viable federal claim. I will give petitioner a chance to amend before recommending that this action be dismissed. I will also grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 6.

22 The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998).

27 Petitioner alleges that the state sentencing court wrongfully ordered that “a prior sentence be imposed consecutively to a second of subsequent sentence.” ECF No. 1 at 1. He contends that | this sentencing structure violates the Double Jeopardy clause. There is, however, no | constitutional prohibition on consecutive sentences. See Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 3 | 504, 507 (9th Cir. 1994). And the Supreme Court has held that “administering multiple sentences | has long been considered the prerogative of state legislatures.” Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160, 168 | (2009). Ultimately, where multiple sentences are jointly imposed, the Double Jeopardy || protection guarantees only that “the court does not exceed its legislative authorization by | imposing multiple punishments for the same offense.” Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 (1977).

8 | Here, according to petitioner, the state courts considered and rejected his claims. This may | suggest that they considered the intent of the state legislature as to the offenses he was convicted | of; Iam bound by the state courts’ determinations. See Downs v. Vare, 443 F. App’x 312, 313 | (9th Cir. 2011) (“[W]e are bound by the Nevada Supreme Court’s determination that state law | permitted conviction for both grand larceny and robbery within the context of a single trial... .”).

13 I will give petitioner an opportunity to amend and explain why this action should proceed | before recommending dismissal.

15 It is ORDERED that: 16 1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 6, is GRANTED.

17 2. Petitioner may file an amended § 2254 petition within thirty days of this order’s | entry. If he does not, I will recommend that the current petition be dismissed for the reasons || stated in this order.

20 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a federal habeas form with this | order.

73 IT IS SO ORDERED.

24 ( q Sty — Dated: _ December 16, 2022 q——— 25 JEREMY D,. PETERSON 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE