Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01476/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01476-0/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

JAMES A. DEVLIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1476 GEB KJM P

vs.

KEN CLARK, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee.

Petitioner challenges his 1996 Sacramento County Superior Court conviction for

possession of heroin by an inmate in violation of California Penal Code § 4573.6 and the finding

that he had suffered three prior strikes. He raises a single challenge to the conviction:

At sentencing the court failed to exercise fair discretion in

applying P. C. 1385 and correctly dismiss allegations (priors) and

accordingly sentence petitioner.

Pet. at 6.

A court may dismiss a habeas petition without issuing an order to show cause if it

appears the petitioner is not entitled to relief. Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 298-99 (1969);

Hunt v. Eyman, 429 F.2d 1318, 1319 (9th Cir. 1970).

Case 2:07-cv-01476-GEB -KJM Document 5 Filed 08/10/07 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

Under California Penal Code § 1385, a trial court has discretion to strike one or

more prior convictions in the furtherance of justice. People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367, 375

(2004). Absent fundamental unfairness, federal habeas relief is not available for a state court’s

misapplication of its own sentencing laws. Ely v. Terhune, 125 F.Supp.2d 403, 411 (C.D. Cal.

2000) (holding claim that state court erred by refusing to strike a prior strike conviction did not

state a federal question). The exhibits attached to petitioner’s habeas petition show that the

superior court considered the question and declined to exercise its discretion to strike any of

petitioner’s prior convictions. Pet., Exs. B & C. Accordingly, the petition does not present a

federal question. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for

a writ of habeas corpus be denied.

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 twenty

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.” 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: August 10, 2007. 

2/devl1476.156

Case 2:07-cv-01476-GEB -KJM Document 5 Filed 08/10/07 Page 2 of 2