Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01637/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01637-1/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

DONAVAN PULLEN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JAMES A. YATES, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-01637 AWI GSA 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 November 13, 2007, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this

Court. Petitioner raises two grounds for relief: 1) Petitioner claims the trial court erred when it

imposed a restitution fine of $200.00; and 2) Petitioner claims he received ineffective assistance of

counsel for counsel’s failure to challenge the restitution fine.

DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal

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

Case 1:07-cv-01637-AWI-GSA Document 8 Filed 11/27/07 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 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 this case, Petitioner fails to state a cognizable federal claim. In both claims for relief,

Petitioner relies entirely on state law. 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.

Further, Petitioner does not allege that the adjudication of his claims in state court “resulted in a

Case 1:07-cv-01637-AWI-GSA Document 8 Filed 11/27/07 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

decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable 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. Petitioner challenges the application of state law and raises only state law claims.

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”). In addition, Federal courts are

bound by state court rulings on questions of state law. Oxborrow v. Eikenberry, 877 F.2d 1395, 1399

(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 942 (1989). Therefore, the petition should be dismissed for failure

to state a claim.

In addition, both of Petitioner’s claims are completely without merit. The sentencing court

initially imposed a restitution fine of $100.00. However as noted by the appellate court, the

minimum restitution fine is $200.00 pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1202.4(b)(1). See Exhibit A,

Petition. Thus, when the sentencing court imposed a restitution fine of $200.00 after parole was

revoked, the court was merely correcting its previous error and modifying the judgment to reflect the

proper statutory minimum. Therefore, there is no merit to Petitioner’s claim of an illegal sentence.

For this same reason, Petitioner also fails to show that counsel erred by failing to challenge the fine

or that he suffered any prejudice due to counsel’s alleged failure. See Strickland v. Washington, 466

U.S. 668, 684 (1984). The petition should be dismissed.

RECOMMENDATION

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

corpus be SUMMARILY DISMISSED with prejudice. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, 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

Case 1:07-cv-01637-AWI-GSA Document 8 Filed 11/27/07 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

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: November 26, 2007 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

60kij8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01637-AWI-GSA Document 8 Filed 11/27/07 Page 4 of 4