1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LISA MARIE PEREZ, No. 2:24-cv-03285-DJC-SCR P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 LAVELLE PARKER, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to

. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 29, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that 22 any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty- 23 one days. Petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 25 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Petitioner argues in her 26 objections that the credits she is challenging as having been properly denied in this 27 case differ from those she is challenging in Belyew v. Parker, No. 2:19-cv-0294-DAD- 28 AC (E.D. Cal.). Even if that is the case, the present application is second or successive 1 | as it challenges the same state court judgment challenged in an earlier petition. See 2 | 28U.S.C. § 2244(b); see also Magwood v. Peterson,

(2010). Where 3 | a petitioner's claims are second or successive, they must obtain leave from the Ninth 4 | Circuit before filing a petition. See Magwood, 541 U.S. at 331; see also Burton v. 5 | Stewart,

(2007). 6 Moreover, even on the merits, her claims in this case must be summarily denied 7 | forthe same reasons her similar claim regarding sentencing credits in the petition in 8 | case number 2:19-cv-0294 was summarily denied: “Errors of state law do not come 9 | within the scope of federal habeas jurisdiction, Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. [62, 67 10 | (1991)], and sentencing is a quintessentially state law matter that is not reviewable in 11 | federal habeas. See Miller v. Vasquez,

(9th Cir. 1989) 12 | (question of state sentencing law are not cognizable in federal habeas). Petitioner 13 | cannot transform her state law issues into federal ones merely by invoking the federal 14 | constitution. See Langford [v. Day,

(9th Cir. 1997)].” See 2:19-cv-0294, 15 | ECF No. 77 at 38. Thus, even if the petitioner is not duplicative, second, or successive, 16 | her petition must be dismissed. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. The Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 7) are adopted in part; 19 2. Petitioner's habeas corpus application (ECF No. 1) is dismissed; and 20 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 21 4. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28

as Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial 23 of a constitutional right, see

(c)(2). 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 | Dated: _October 20, 2025 Donel J Cob tto— Hon. Daniel alabretta 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28