Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03058/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03058-0/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)

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN BARTHOLOMEW,

Petitioner, No. 2:09-cv-3058-JAM-JFM (HC)

vs.

D. K. SISTO, ORDER AND 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma

pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals that petitioner is unable to

afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts

authorizes a judge to summarily dismiss a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the

petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district

court.” Ruel 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. The gravamen of petitioner’s claim is that the California

Board of Parole Hearings has failed to conduct timely parole hearings for petitioner in

Case 2:09-cv-03058-JAM -JFM Document 6 Filed 07/21/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

accordance with the requirements of state law and a state court consent decree. A writ of habeas

corpus is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only on the basis of some transgression of federal law

binding on the state courts. See Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985). It is

unavailable for alleged error in the interpretation or application of state law. See id. at 1085; see

also Lincoln v. Sunn, 807 F.2d 805, 814 (9th Cir. 1987). Petitioner’s claim is grounded in state

law and is not cognizable in this federal habeas corpus proceeding.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s

request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be summarily dismissed. See

Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served

within fourteen days after service of the objections. Petitioner is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: July 20, 2010.

12

bart3058.156

Case 2:09-cv-03058-JAM -JFM Document 6 Filed 07/21/10 Page 2 of 2