Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03823/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03823-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THANG DUNG HUYNH,

Petitioner,

 v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

_

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 05-3823 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket No. 2)

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has applied for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner pled guilty to charges of possession of a controlled substance and admitted

certain sentencing enhancements based on a prior conviction and prior term of imprisonment. 

He was sentenced to a term of six years in state prison. The California Court of Appeal

affirmed and the California Supreme Court denied review. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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);

Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court 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." 28

U.S.C. § 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) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-

76 (1977)). 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner claims (1) that the trial court incorrectly imposed a one-year term under

California Penal Code § 667.5(b) based on petitioner’s prior commitment to the California

Youth Authority; and (2) that under state law, his prior robbery conviction should have been

stricken in the interests of justice. These claims are not cognizable in federal district court

because petitioner does not allege the violation of any federal law, as is required for federal

habeas relief. Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A federal court may vacate a state

sentencing decision only on the basis of some transgression of federal law, not state law. See

Walker v. Endell, 850 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, petitioner has not stated a

cognizable claim for federal habeas relief.

CONCLUSION 

In light of the foregoing, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED for

failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. The application to proceed in forma pauperis is

GRANTED.

This order terminates Docket No. 2. 

The Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 28, 2005

 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

123456789

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

United States District Judge