Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00343/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00343-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

United SFor thtates District e Northern District of CaCourt lifornia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.05\Newman343_deny.wpd

United SFor thtates District e Northern District of CaCourt lifornia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES NEWMAN,

Petitioner,

 vs.

RICHARD KIRKLAND, Warden, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-00343 JW (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner, a California state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Corcoran

State Prison, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254, alleging he was deprived of half-time credits in violation of due process.

The Court found the petition, liberally construed, stated a potentially cognizable

claim under § 2254 and ordered respondent to show cause why the petition should

not be granted. Respondent filed an answer and petitioner filed a traverse.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner alleges that for the period August 13, 2002 to December 10, 2003,

Case 5:05-cv-00343-JW Document 11 Filed 06/01/07 Page 1 of 3
United SFor thtates District e Northern District of CaCourt lifornia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.05\Newman343_deny.wpd 2

he was placed on the full time job waiting list. Petitioner claims that being on the

waiting list entitled him under California law to receive three months sentence credit

for every six months served, or in other words half-time credit, but that he was not

given such credit. 

Petitioner alleges that he exhausted his administrative remedies. He also

claims that he filed a state habeas petition with the California Supreme Court, which

was denied on December 15, 2004. Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas

petition on January 25, 2005.

DISCUSSION

State prisoners who wish to challenge the computation of their time credits

must do so in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, because a favorable

determination of the claim would likely result in entitlement to an earlier release. 

See Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997); Young v. Kenny, 907

F.2d 874, 876-78 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 858-59

(9th Cir. 2003) (noting where claim, if successful, would “necessarily” or “likely”

accelerate prisoner’s release on parole, claim is properly brought by way of habeas

petition). 

 This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a

person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that

he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).

Respondent is correct that petitioner’s claim that he is entitled to receive

credits under California law is not cognizable in a federal habeas petition. A writ of

habeas corpus is available “only on the basis of some transgression of federal law

binding on the state courts.” Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir.

Case 5:05-cv-00343-JW Document 11 Filed 06/01/07 Page 2 of 3
United SFor thtates District e Northern District of CaCourt lifornia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Petitioner’s claim still fails on the merits as it appears from the record of his 1

administrative appeals that petitioner was in fact given the half-time credits, i.e., one

day of credit for each two days served, which he claims he did not receive. See

Computation Review Hearing Decision (Pet. Ex. G, February 20, 2003); see also

Director’s Level Appeal Decision (Pet. Ex. J, May 12, 2003). 

Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.05\Newman343_deny.wpd 3

1985). It is unavailable for violations of state law or for alleged error in the

interpretation or application of state law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-

68 (1991). Here, as noted, petitioner alleges that state officials have misapplied state

law in calculating work credits.1

Accordingly, as the petition does not claim a violation of federal law, the

petition is hereby DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal

habeas relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED for failing to state a

cognizable claim for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

 

DATED: June 1, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

Case 5:05-cv-00343-JW Document 11 Filed 06/01/07 Page 3 of 3