(HC) Bond v. Sacramento County

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM ANTHONY BOND, Case No. 2:24-cv-1598-JDP (P) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER SACRAMENTO COUNTY, 15 Respondent.

18 Petitioner, an inmate at the Rio Consumnes Correctional Center, brings this action under section 2254. ECF No. 1. He raises two sets of claims. The first relate to the validity of a plea deal he entered. Petitioner claims that he would not have entered the deal but for misrepresentations made by his attorney. Id. at 3-6. He does not allege that he has exhausted these claims regarding the validity of his plea by presenting them to the California Supreme Court, however. He also alleges that the terms of his probation were unreasonable. Id. at 6-8.

24 These allegations sound in state law and do not raise a federal claim. I will dismiss the current petition with leave to amend so that petitioner may address these deficiencies.

26 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).

4 Petitioner claims that his plea deal was invalid because he entered it based on misrepresentations made by his counsel. ECF No. 1 at 3. Federal habeas claims must be exhausted by presentation to the highest state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); McNeeley v. Arave, 842 F.2d 230, 231 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, petitioner does not indicate that he has presented the claims regarding the validity of his plea to the California Supreme Court. He claims that he has fully exhausted his claims, but his form also indicates that he did not appeal his conviction, nor did he file any separate state habeas petitions attacking it. ECF No. 1 at 14.

11 Additionally, petitioner’s claims regarding the terms of his parole, id. at 6-8, do not raise a federal claim. See Sethi v. L.A. Cty. Sheriffs, NO. CV 19-4710-AG(E), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13 163588, *10 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2019) (“Matters relating to sentencing and serving of a sentence generally are governed by state law and do not raise a federal constitutional question.”).

15 I will dismiss the current petition with leave to amend. Petitioner may file an amended petition within thirty days explaining why these claims should proceed despite these deficiencies.

17 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 18 1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED.

19 2. The petition, ECF No. 1, is dismissed with leave to amend.

20 3. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended petition or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice.

22 4. Failure to timely file either an amended petition or notice of voluntary dismissal may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

24 5. The Clerk of Court shall send petitioner a habeas form with this order. > IT IS SO ORDERED.

3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ November 13, 2024 Q_—_—.

4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE