1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1] EARL WASHINGTON, JR., 1 Petitioner Case No. 5:22-cv-01052-JGB (GJS) 13 V. ORDER: ACCEPTING FINDINGS 14 || wi MONTGOMERY. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 15 Respondent. JUDGE; AND DENYING MOTION 16 17 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the

18 || petition in this case and all relevant pleadings and other documents filed and lodged 19 || in this action, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7, “Respondent’s Motion’) and 20 || the related Opposition (Dkt. 12), and the Report and Recommendation of United 21 || States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 17, “Report”). The time for filing Objections to the 22 || Report has passed and no Objections have been received by the Court. Having 23 || completed its review, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations set forth 24 || in the Report. 25 On April 11, 2023, Petitioner filed a “Motion to Correct an Unauthorized 26 || Sentence Pursuant to People v. Iniguez (2002) 96 CA 4" 75, 116 CR 2d 634 and 27 || Penal Code Section § 186.22(b)(4).1 15 years X2+30yrs. For Nonexisting Crime” 28 || (Dkt. 22, “Petitioner’s Motion”). Although Petitioner directed the Motion to the

1 || United States Magistrate Judge, it more appropriately is resolved by the 2 || undersigned. The Motion is brought solely under state law and asserts claims of 3 || California law evidentiary error at trial and sentencing error. 4 The Motion is not cognizable for several reasons. To the extent that the 5 || Motion asserts new claims, there is no evidence that Petitioner has exhausted them, 6 || and thus, they cannot serve as a basis for relief in this federal habeas action. See 28 7 || U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). Moreover, any such new claims would be second or 8 || successive for the same reasons set forth in the Report with respect to the 28 U.S.C. 9 || § 2254 habeas petition filed in this case, and thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction to 10 || consider them. In addition, the Motion raises only state law issues that should be 11 || presented in state court, not in a Section 2254 federal habeas action. See Estelle v. 12 || McGuire,

(1991); see also Swarthout v. Cooke,

, 13 || 219 (2011) (per curiam) (‘We have stated many times that federal habeas corpus 14 || relief does not lie for errors of state law.’”’) (citation omitted); Wilson v. Corcoran, 15 ||

(2010) (per curiam) (“it is only noncompliance with federal law that 16 || renders a State’s criminal judgment susceptible to collateral attack in the federal 17 || courts”) (per curiam). 18 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Petitioner’s Motion is DENIED; (2) 19 || Respondent’s Motion is GRANTED; (3) the Petition is dismissed without prejudice 20 || on the ground that it is an unauthorized second or successive petition within the 21 || meaning of

(b); and (4) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this 22 || action without prejudice. 23 24 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 25 %6 DATED: May 22, 2023 > Sl 28 JESUS %. BERNAL UNM STATES DISTRICT JUDGE