Case ID: f-appx_283/html/0559-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Setsuko Betty POST, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Victor C. RIVAS, Deputy Probation Officer; Richard Shumsky, Chief Probation Officer, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 06-55253.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 4, 2008.
    Filed June 25, 2008.
    Law Offices of Alissa Sawano Peterson, Irvine, CA, Setsuko Betty Post, Apple Valley, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Patrick D. Moran, Esq., Office of the District Attorney County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: THOMPSON, O’SCANNLAIN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner Setsuko Betty Post appeals the district court’s denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging her jury conviction for workers compensation insurance fraud and perjury. We do not have jurisdiction to hear Post’s appeal, because her claim is grounded in the California Court of Appeal’s interpretation of California’s statutes governing perjury and the taking of depositions, which are matters of state law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991). Post has thus failed to put forth a cognizable claim for federal habeas corpus review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

In addition, the California Supreme Court denied Post’s state habeas petition because Post was not in custody when she filed that proceeding. See In re Wessley W., 125 Cal.App.3d 240, 181 Cal.Rptr. 401, 403 (1981). Post’s lack of custody is a procedural bar, and there is no basis upon which we may premise jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This Order is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.