1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHAEL E. COLLINS, Case No. 24-cv-06569-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 4 10 WARDEN, Defendant. 11

12 INTRODUCTION 13 Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas 14 corpus under

seeking his immediate release from confinement. His application 15 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. For the reasons explained below, the 16 petition is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. 17 BACKGROUND 18 Petitioner was found guilty in Alameda County Superior Court of murder with use of a 19 deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced him to a term of 27 years to life in state prison, which 20 included enhancements for prior prison terms. The enhancements were reversed on appeal by the 21 California Court of Appeal. The California Supreme Court denied a petition for review. Habeas 22 petitions to the Alameda County Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal, and the 23 California Supreme Court were denied. 24 DISCUSSION 25 I. Standard of Review 26 This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 27 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 1 shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should 2 || not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not 3 entitled thereto.”

§ 2243. 4 IL. Legal Claims 5 Petitioner makes three claims, namely that he is entitled to relief under California Penal 6 Code Sections 1170.91, 1170.3, and 1170(b). CECF No. | at 5.) A writ of habeas corpus is not 7 available under

for violations of state law or for alleged error in the 8 interpretation or application of state law. See Swarthout v. Cooke,

(2011). The 9 || three claims in the petition seek federal habeas relief solely on the basis of state law. (ECF No. | 10 at 5; see also

at 6 (citing California court decisions and legislation).) These claims are not 11 cognizable because he may not obtain federal habeas relief on the basis of the violation of state 12 || law.

13 CONCLUSION 14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable 3 15 || claim for relief. The application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED in light of a 16 || Petitioner’s lack of funds. (ECF No. 4.) 3 17 The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: October 28, 2024 20 / | / 21 \ Le Ati) Whie~ JEFFREY $. WHITE Unite¢/States istrict Judge 23 □ 24 25 26 27 28