1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LaDARIUS D. MURPHY, No. 2:24-cv-01978-TLN-EFB (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 STEVEN SMITH1, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to

, which is before the court for screening. ECF No. 1. He has paid 20 the filing fee. Petitioner has also filed two motions for appointment of counsel. ECF Nos. 9, 10. 21 There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 22 See Nevius v. Sumner,

(9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A 23 authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so 24

25 1 The Sacramento County Court was previously named as the respondent. Steven Smith is 26 currently the warden of Pelican Bay State Prison, where petitioner is incarcerated. “A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the 27 respondent to the petition.” Stanley v. California Supreme Court,

(9th Cir. 1994) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). Accordingly, the court substitutes Smith as 28 respondent. 1 require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not 2 find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present 3 time. 4 Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that the petition “shall specify 5 all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner and of which he has or by the 6 exercise of reasonable diligence should have knowledge and shall set forth in summary form the 7 facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 8 Cases. Petitioner must also clearly state the relief sought in the petition. Id. Additionally, the 9 Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 explains that “notice pleading is not sufficient, for the 10 petition is expected to state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error.” Advisory 11 Committee Notes to Rule 4; see Blackledge v. Allison,

(1977). 12 Petitioner asserts three claims, all of which are too vague to comply with Rule 2(c). The 13 claims are that: (1) “petitioner was denied the constitutional rights to be afforded relief in laws 14 and provisions” (ECF No. 1 at 5, listing various state laws); (2) petitioner was denied the 15 constitutional right of review in ‘Judicial Council’” (id., alleging that the state trial court failed to 16 apply “sentencing rules of judicial council and sentencing and hearings pursuant under PC § 17 1172.1(d)(2) [sic]”); and (3) appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by filing “a weak 18 appeal that deliberately disregard[ed] the merits of my appeal and sentence” (id.). 19 These allegations do not make clear how petitioner is in custody in violation of the federal 20 Constitution or laws. In addition, the first two grounds asserted by petitioner appear to challenge 21 the trial court’s interpretation and/or application of state laws and sentencing schemes. Federal 22 habeas relief is not available to correct errors in the interpretation or application of state law. 23 Swarthout v. Cooke,

, 219 (2011); Lewis v. Jeffers,

(9th 1990). 24 Therefore, the petition is dismissed with leave to amend. Rule 4, Rules Governing 25 Section 2254 Cases. In the amended petition, petitioner must set forth each claim for relief and 26 summarize the facts he alleges support each of the identified claims. 27 //// 28 //// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with leave to amend 3 within thirty days from the date of this order; 4 2. Any amended petition must bear the case number assigned to this action and the title 5 “Amended Petition”; 6 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the court’s form application for 7 writ of habeas corpus; 8 4. Petitioner’s motions for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 9, 10) are DENIED 9 without prejudice to their renewal at a later stage of the proceedings. 10 11 || Dated: February 20, 2025 4 Lo Putin 2 Aid £ Si 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ||§$ ———— 2 By setting this deadline the court is making no finding or representation that the petition 28 | is not subject to dismissal as untimely.