Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01408/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01408-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY A. SHARP,

Petitioner,

v.

EDWARD BORLA, 

Respondent.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01408-JLT-EPG-HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS 

Petitioner Anthony A. Sharp is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. As the instant petition fails to state a cognizable 

federal habeas claim, the undersigned recommends dismissal of the petition.

I.

BACKGROUND

In 2016, Petitioner was sentenced by the Fresno County Superior Court to an 

imprisonment term of twenty-five years. (ECF No. 1 at 1.1) On November 14, 2024, Petitioner 

filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging the state courts’ denial of 

resentencing. (Id. at 5.) Petitioner asserts that his sentence is unauthorized due to the passage of 

California Senate Bill 567 and Assembly Bill 518. (Id. at 12.) 

///

1 Page numbers refer to ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

Case 1:24-cv-01408-JLT-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/14/25 Page 1 of 3
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

2

II.

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 

habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 

to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

Here, Petitioner challenges the state courts’ denial of resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill 

567 and Assembly Bill 518. (ECF No. 1 at 12.) By statute, federal courts “shall entertain an 

application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Whether Petitioner is entitled to relief 

pursuant to Senate Bill 567 and Assembly Bill 518 is an issue of state law. “[I]t is not the 

province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law 

questions.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991). “We accept a state court’s 

interpretation of state law, and alleged errors in the application of state law are not cognizable in 

federal habeas corpus.” Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation 

omitted)). Accordingly, Petitioner fails to state a cognizable clam for federal habeas corpus 

relief.

III. 

RECOMMENDATION 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for 

writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 

THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file 

written objections, no longer than fifteen (15) pages, including exhibits, with the Court and

Case 1:24-cv-01408-JLT-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/14/25 Page 2 of 3
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

3

serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned United States District Court Judge 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. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 

v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 14, 2025 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01408-JLT-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/14/25 Page 3 of 3