(HC) Baker v. Superior Courts of California

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JAMAUL LEE BAKER, Case No. 2:24-cv-00476-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM, SUPERIOR COURTS OF GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND, AND CALIFORNIA, et al. GRANTING PETITIONER’S 15 APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA Respondents. PAUPERIS ECF Nos. 1 & 12 Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this action under section 2254. ECF No. 1. The petition is deficient because it appears to invoke only questions of state law. I will grant him leave to amend to explain why this action should proceed. I will also grant petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 12.

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).

Petitioner argues that he is entitled to sentencing relief under California Senate Bill 620 | and California Penal Code § 12022.53. ECF No. 1 at 1-2. Whether a prisoner is entitled to relief | under either is a question of state law that does not give rise to a cognizable federal habeas claim.

3 | See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991) (“We have stated many times that federal habeas | corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). And | petitioner may not transform a state law claim into a federal one merely by asserting that the error | of state law is a violation of his federal due process rights. See Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1381 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Langford may not, however, transform a state-law issue into a federal one | merely by asserting a violation of due process.”). I will give petitioner leave to amend to explain | why this action should proceed despite this deficiency.

10 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 11 1. The Clerk of Court shall send petitioner a habeas form.

12 2. Petitioner must file an amended petition within thirty days of this order’s entry. If he 13 fails to do so, I will recommend this action be dismissed.

14 3. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 12, is GRANTED.

16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 ( 1 Sy — Dated: _ October 2, 2024 18 JEREMY D. PETERSON 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE