Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01702/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01702-1/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HERIBERTO BOTELLO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

TIM VIRGA, Warden, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:12-cv—01702-BAM-HC

ORDER DISMISSING STATE LAW CLAIMS

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

AND DISMISSING UNCERTAIN CLAIMS

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (DOC. 1)

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A

FIRST AMENDED PETITION NO LATER

THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFER THE

DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO SEND

A PETITION FORM TO PETITIONER

FILING DEADLINE:

THIRTY (30) DAYS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1),

Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the United States

Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings in the case,

including the entry of final judgment, by manifesting consent in

a signed writing filed by Petitioner on October 24, 2012 (doc.

7). 

1

Case 1:12-cv-01702-BAM Document 8 Filed 10/29/12 Page 1 of 7
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

 Pending before the Court is the petition, which was filed on

October 4, 2012, and transferred to this Court on October 17,

2012. 

I. Screening the Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United

States District Courts (Habeas Rules) requires the Court to make

a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus.

The Court must summarily dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly

appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court....”

Habeas Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir.

1990); see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.

1990). Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all

grounds of relief available to the Petitioner; 2) state the facts

supporting each ground; and 3) state the relief requested. 

Notice pleading is not sufficient; rather, the petition must

state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional

error. Rule 4, Advisory Committee Notes, 1976 Adoption;

O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d at 420 (quoting Blackledge v.

Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n. 7 (1977)). Allegations in a petition

that are vague, conclusory, or palpably incredible are subject to

summary dismissal. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d at 491.

Further, the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas

corpus either on its own motion under Habeas Rule 4, pursuant to

the respondent's motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the

petition has been filed. Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule

8, 1976 Adoption; see, Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43

(9th Cir. 2001).

2

Case 1:12-cv-01702-BAM Document 8 Filed 10/29/12 Page 2 of 7
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

A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without

leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief

can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440

F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).

II. Background 

Petitioner alleges that he is an inmate of the California

State Prison at Sacramento (CSP-SAC) serving a sentence of ten

years and fifteen years to life for convictions suffered on or

about May 20, 2009, in the Superior Court of the State of

California, County of Tulare, for kidnaping for the purpose of

robbery with gun and gang enhancements, assault with a deadly

weapon, and a criminal threat. (Pet., doc. 1, 1.) 

Petitioner alleges the following claims in the petition: 1)

conviction of kidnaping for robbery in the absence of sufficient

evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt an intent to rob

formulated prior to the kidnaping, considered in light of the

prosecutor’s misstatements of evidence and the law, violated

Petitioner’s right to due process of law under the Fourteenth

Amendment and the state constitution (id. at 4, 15-21); 2) resentencing Petitioner to eight additional years beyond the

original sentence based on an inapplicable statute and with a

dual use of facts violated Petitioner’s right to due process of

law (id. at 4, 21-23); 3) conviction of a gang enhancement

without proof of a specific intent to benefit a street gang

except based on expert testimony violated Petitioner’s right to

due process of law (id. at 5, 16, 23-24); 4) a life sentence for

a juvenile who did not commit murder or attempted murder or have

a record of convictions that would qualify as three strikes was

3

Case 1:12-cv-01702-BAM Document 8 Filed 10/29/12 Page 3 of 7
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

cruel and unusual punishment under the state and federal

constitutions (id. at 5, 24, 29-31); 5) Petitioner’s right under

the Fourteenth Amendment to the effective assistance of appellate

counsel was violated by counsel’s failure to raise the grounds

raised in this petition (id. at 6, 31); and 6) the evidence was

insufficient to establish that the group was a criminal street

gang (id. at 6).

III. State Law Claims

A. Legal Standards

Because the petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the

effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty

Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the AEDPA applies to the petition. Lindh v.

Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d

1484, 1499 (9th Cir. 1997). 

A district court may entertain a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of

a state court only on the ground that the custody is in violation

of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28

U.S.C. §§ 2254(a), 2241(c)(3); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362,

375 n.7 (2000); Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. –, -, 131 S.Ct. 13,

16 (2010) (per curiam).

Federal habeas relief is not available to retry a state

issue that does not rise to the level of a federal constitutional

violation. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). 

Alleged errors in the application of state law are not cognizable

in federal habeas corpus. Souch v. Schiavo, 289 F.3d 616 (9th

Cir. 2002) (a claim challenging state court’s discretionary

decision concerning application of state sentencing law presented

4

Case 1:12-cv-01702-BAM Document 8 Filed 10/29/12 Page 4 of 7
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

only state law issues and was not cognizable in a proceeding

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254); Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380,

1389 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court accepts a state court's

interpretation of state law. Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380,

1389 (9th Cir. 1996). In a habeas corpus proceeding, this Court

is bound by the California Supreme Court’s interpretation of

California law unless it is determined that the interpretation is

untenable or a veiled attempt to avoid review of federal

questions. Murtishaw v. Woodford, 255 F.3d 926, 964 (9 Cir. th

2001).

B. Analysis of Petitioner’s Claims

1. Claims Based in Part on State Law 

Petitioner expressly relies in part on the state

constitution in his first and fourth claims; thus, insofar as

Petitioner relies on state law in those two claims, the claims

must be dismissed. Because state law claims are not legally

cognizable in a proceeding pursuant to § 2254, to the extent that

Petitioner’s second claim concerning the sufficiency of the

evidence and Petitioner’s fourth claim concerning allegedly cruel

and unusual punishment are based on the state law, they must be

dismissed without leave to amend. The parts of Petitioner’s

first and fourth claims based on the Federal Constitution are not

affected by the dismissal without leave to amend.

2. Claims with Unclear Legal Bases

With respect to Petitioner’s second claim concerning resentencing as a violation of due process, and his sixth claim

concerning the sufficiency of evidence, Petitioner does not

expressly refer to any provision of the Federal Constitution as

5

Case 1:12-cv-01702-BAM Document 8 Filed 10/29/12 Page 5 of 7
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

the legal basis of his claims. Thus, it is not clear that 1

Petitioner is stating claims based on federal law. 

It is possible that Petitioner intended to state claims

based on federal law. Thus, Petitioner should be granted leave

to amend the petition to state federal claims expressly.

IV. Amendment of the Petition 

Because the federal legal basis of Petitioner’s second and

sixth claims is unclear, Petitioner’s second and sixth claims

must be dismissed. 

However, Petitioner will be given an opportunity to file a

first amended petition to cure the deficiencies in his second and

sixth claims. Petitioner is advised that failure to file a

petition in compliance with this order (i.e., a completed

petition with cognizable federal claims clearly stated) within

the allotted time will result in dismissal of the petition and

termination of the action. Petitioner is advised that the

amended petition should be entitled, “First Amended Petition,”

and it must refer to the case number in this action. Further,

Petitioner is informed that Local Rule 220 provides that unless

prior approval to the contrary is obtained from the Court, every

pleading as to which an amendment or supplement is permitted

shall be retyped or rewritten and filed so that it is complete in

itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.

/// 

With respect to Petitioner’s third claim, although Petitioner does not

1

expressly refer to the federal Constitution, he does cite authority which in

turn cites to cases expressly relying on Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307

(1979). Thus, Petitioner’s third claim is understood as a federal due process

claim.

6

Case 1:12-cv-01702-BAM Document 8 Filed 10/29/12 Page 6 of 7
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

V. Disposition 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1) Petitioner’s first and fourth claims concerning the

sufficiency of the evidence and cruel and unusual punishment are

DISMISSED without leave to amend insofar as they are based on the

state constitution because they are not cognizable in a

proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; and

2) Petitioner’s second and sixth claims concerning due

process and sufficiency of the evidence are DISMISSED with leave

to amend because it is unclear whether they are based on federal

law; and

3) Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of

service of this order to file an amended petition in compliance

with this order; and

4) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a

form petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 26, 2012 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

10c20k UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

Case 1:12-cv-01702-BAM Document 8 Filed 10/29/12 Page 7 of 7