Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01584/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01584-2/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

1

This information is derived from the petition for writ of habeas corpus, Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition,

the lodged documents in support of Respondent’s motion to dismiss, and Petitioner’s opposition.

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS MANUEL VASQUEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

TOM L. CAREY, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-1584 AWI LJO HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING RESPONDENT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS AND PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR STAY

[Docs. #9, 13]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

BACKGROUND1

Petitioner is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections pursuant to

a judgment of the Superior Court of California, County of Madera, following his conviction by jury

trial on February 5, 2003, of possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of Cal. Penal Code

§ 12021(a)(1), and possession of ammunition by a felon in violation of Cal. Penal Code

§ 12316(b)(1). See Exhibit 1, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (hereinafter “Motion”). The trial

Case 1:05-cv-01584-AWI-LJO Document 15 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 5
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

court found the allegations of prior strike convictions true and sentenced Petitioner to serve an

indeterminate prison term of twenty-five years to life on his first count and a concurrent term of

twenty-five years to life on his second count. Id.

Petitioner thereafter appealed the conviction. On August 19, 2004, the California Court of

Appeal, Fifth Appellate District (hereinafter “5th DCA”) affirmed the conviction but modified the

sentence by staying the sentence imposed on the second count. See Exhibit 5, Motion.

On September 21, 2004, Petitioner filed a petition for review with the California Supreme

Court. See Exhibit 6, Motion. Review was summarily denied by the California Supreme Court on

November 17, 2004. Id.

On December 14, 2005, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this

Court. Petitioner raises the following ground for relief: “Because both of Mr. Vasquez’s prior

serious felony convictions arose out of a sing[l]e act the trial court abused its discretion when it

denied his motion to strike his prior strike convictions. [sic] In violation of the equal protection, due

process, and or cruel and unusual punishment clauses of the U.S. Const.”

On March 2, 2006, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a

cognizable federal claim, and alternatively, as unexhausted in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).

On April 21, 2006, Petitioner filed an opposition to Respondent’s motion to dismiss and a

motion to stay the proceedings.

DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Grounds for Motion to Dismiss

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a

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

entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” 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

(9th Cir. 1971).

Case 1:05-cv-01584-AWI-LJO Document 15 Filed 05/02/06 Page 2 of 5
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

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 petition before the Court, Petitioner raises one ground for relief. Respondent

contends the claim, as it was presented to the state court, only raised issues of state law. Respondent

argues that the instant claim is a restatement of the claim raised before the state courts except that

Petitioner has added constitutional terminology in an attempt to “federalize” his claim. Respondent

argues it must be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable federal claim. Alternatively, Respondent

argues that Petitioner did not raise the federal basis for his ground for relief to the California

Supreme Court, and it is therefore unexhausted. 

The Court has reviewed the petition and finds Respondent’s arguments persuasive. Although

Petitioner alleges a violation of the Constitution in his claim, his broad assertion does not transform

the claim into a federal one. Aside from the few broad constitutional terms mentioned at the

beginning of his claim, the rest of the claim is entirely centered on state law, and generally, issues of

Case 1:05-cv-01584-AWI-LJO Document 15 Filed 05/02/06 Page 3 of 5
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

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”). Merely placing a “due process”

label on an alleged violation does not entitle Petitioner to federal relief. Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d

1386, 1388-89 (1996). Broad, conclusory allegations of unconstitutionality are insufficient to state a

cognizable claim. Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 205 (9th Cir.1995); Greyson v. Kellam, 937 F.2d

1409, 1412 (9th Cir.1991) (bald assertions of ineffective assistance of counsel did not entitle the

petitioner to an evidentiary hearing); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir.1999),

citing Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-63 (1996) (“general appeals to broad constitutional

principles, such as due process, equal protection, and the right to a fair trial, are insufficient to

establish exhaustion). A petitioner in federal court cannot merely characterize some state act as

unconstitutional and expect the court to explore all possible grounds under each article and

amendment of the Constitution. While courts should liberally interpret pro se pleadings with

leniency and understanding, this should not place on the reviewing court the entire onus of creating a

federal claim for the petitioner.

Therefore, the instant petition must be dismissed because Petitioner’s sole ground for relief

fails to state a cognizable federal claim. The petition should be dismissed without leave to amend as

no tenable federal claim can be raised. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). A federal

basis for the claim has not been presented to the state court, and it is therefore unexhausted. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).

C. Motion for Stay

Petitioner requests the instant petition be stayed while Petitioner returns to state court. A

district court has discretion to stay a petition which it may validly consider on the merits. Rhines v.

Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1534, 2005 WL 711587 (2005); Calderon v. United States

Dist. Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 987-88 (9th Cir. 1998); Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268,

1274 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1102 (1997). However, the Supreme Court recently held that

Case 1:05-cv-01584-AWI-LJO Document 15 Filed 05/02/06 Page 4 of 5
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 5

this discretion is circumscribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

(AEDPA). Rhines, 125 S.Ct. at 1534. In light of AEDPA’s objectives, “stay and abeyance [is]

available only in limited circumstances” and “is only appropriate when the district court determines

there was good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims first in state court.” Id. at 1535. 

Even if Petitioner were to demonstrate good cause for that failure, “the district court would abuse its

discretion if it were to grant him a stay when his unexhausted claims are plainly meritless.” Id.

In this case, the Court does not find good cause to excuse Petitioner’s failure. As discussed

above, the instant claim fails to state a cognizable federal claim. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for a

stay should be denied. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be

GRANTED, the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED without leave to amend, and

Petitioner’s motion for stay be DENIED. This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the

United States District Court Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 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 of this Findings and Recommendation,

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 Finding and Recommendation will then be

submitted to the District Court for review of 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 Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01584-AWI-LJO Document 15 Filed 05/02/06 Page 5 of 5