Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02532/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02532-0/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEMIKO DELFORD BUFORD, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON, 

Respondent. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-2532 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket No. 3)

Petitioner, a prisoner of the state of California, currently incarcerated at San

Quentin State Prison in San Quentin, California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner contends that the California

Supreme Court has violated his rights by failing to promptly address his pending state

habeas petition. Plaintiff has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis

which is now GRANTED (docket no. 3).

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This Court may entertain a petition 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
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

U.S.C. § 2254(a). It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to

show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application

that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. Summary

dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or

conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v.

Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

 In this case, Petitioner challenges the California Supreme Court’s failure to timely

resolve his pending state habeas petition. However, errors in the state post-conviction

review process are not addressable through federal habeas corpus proceedings. See

Ortiz v. Stewart, 149 F.3d 923, 939 (9th Cir. 1998); Gerlaugh v. Stewart, 129 F.3d

1027, 1045 (9th Cir. 1997); Villafuerte v. Stewart, 111 F.3d 616, 632 n.7 (9th Cir.

1997); Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1012

(1989). Such errors do not generally represent an attack on the prisoner's detention and

therefore are not proper grounds for habeas relief. See id. They instead generally

pertain to the review process itself and not to the constitutionality of a state conviction. 

See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 2254(I) (claims of ineffective assistance of state or federal postconviction counsel not cognizable on federal habeas review); Franzen, 877 F.2d at 26

(delay in state habeas proceeding not addressable in federal habeas); Hopkinson v.

Shillinger, 866 F.2d 1185, 1218-20 (10th Cir. 1989) (state court's summary denial of

petition for post-conviction relief is procedural deficiency in review process that does

no violence to federal constitutional rights); Millard v. Lynaugh, 810 F.2d 1403, 1410

(5th Cir. 1987) (denial of hearing on state collateral proceedings not addressable in

federal habeas), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 838 (1987); see also Application of Gordon,

157 F.2d 659, 660 (9th Cir. 1946) (allegation that state court decided appeal

improperly not enough to state claim in federal habeas).
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

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED for the

reasons set forth above. The Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 1, 2005 

 

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

 United States District Judge