Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00162/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00162-1/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMIK MARKARIAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JAMES YATES, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-00162 OWW DLB HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72-302.

On January 9, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States

District Court for the Central District of California. By order of the Court dated January 19, 2007,

the action was transferred to the Eastern District and received in this Court. In the petition before the

Court, Petitioner raises one ground for relief: 1) “Petitioner is being denied parole as required by

Penal Code Section 3046 after serving maximum matrix.”

DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

Case 1:07-cv-00162-LJO -DLB Document 6 Filed 05/08/07 Page 1 of 4
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not

entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk

to notify the petitioner. 

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of

habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to

dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. 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 (9 Cir. 1971). th

B. Failure to State a Cognizable Federal Claim

The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Subsection (c) of Section 2241 of

Title 28 of the United States Code provides that habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless

he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) states:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall 

entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in 

custody pursuant to a 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.

(emphasis added). See also, Rule 1 to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States

District Court. The Supreme Court has held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a

person in custody upon the legality of that custody . . .” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484

(1973).

Furthermore, in order to succeed in a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner must

demonstrate that the adjudication of his claim in state court

resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application

of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the

United States; or resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable 

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court

proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1),(2). 

In the instant case, Petitioner fails to state a cognizable federal claim. Petitioner does not

allege a violation of the Constitution or federal law, nor does he argue that he is in custody in

violation of the Constitution or federal law. Petitioner does not allege that the adjudication of his

claims in state court “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable

Case 1:07-cv-00162-LJO -DLB Document 6 Filed 05/08/07 Page 2 of 4
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

application of, clearly established Federal law, . . . or resulted in a decision that was based on an

unreasonable determination of the facts . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Rather, he argues the parole board is

not complying with state statute. Petitioner’s claim involves the application of state law, and

generally, issues of state law are not cognizable on federal habeas. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62,

67, (1991) ("We have stated many times that 'federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of

state law.' "), quoting Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990); Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U.S. 333,

348-49 (1993) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (“mere error of state law, one that does not rise to the level

of a constitutional violation, may not be corrected on federal habeas”); Oxborrow v. Eikenberry, 877

F.2d 1395, 1399 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 942 (1989) (Federal courts are bound by state

court rulings on questions of state law.). 

In addition, Petitioner’s claim is plainly meritless. Cal. Penal Code § 3046 provides: 

(a) No prisoner imprisoned under a life sentence may be paroled until he or she has served

the greater of the following:

(1) A term of at least seven calendar years.

(2) A term as established pursuant to any other provision of law that establishes a

minimum term or minimum period of confinement under a life sentence before

eligibility for parole.

(b) If two or more life sentences are ordered to run consecutively to each other pursuant to

Section 669, no prisoner so imprisoned may be paroled until he or she has served the term

specified in subdivision (a) on each of the life sentences that are ordered to run consecutively.

(c) The Board of Prison Terms shall, in considering a parole for a prisoner, consider all

statements and recommendations which may have been submitted by the judge, district

attorney, and sheriff, pursuant to Section 1203.01, or in response to notices given under

Section 3042, and recommendations of other persons interested in the granting or denying of

the parole. The board shall enter on its order granting or denying parole to these prisoners,

the fact that the statements and recommendations have been considered by it.

Nothing in the statute requires the parole board to set a parole date after Petitioner has served

his maximum matrix for his offense. Rather, the statute provides for the minimum term that must be

served before parole may be granted.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas

corpus be DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to state a claim cognizable under 28

U.S.C. § 2254. 

Case 1:07-cv-00162-LJO -DLB Document 6 Filed 05/08/07 Page 3 of 4
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 4

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. 

Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and

filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. 

The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The

parties are 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 (9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 8, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00162-LJO -DLB Document 6 Filed 05/08/07 Page 4 of 4