Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00261/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00261-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WESLEY CARLILE,

Petitioner,

v.

RON DAVIS,

Respondent.

No. 2:16-cv-0261 MCE CKD P

ORDER AND 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Examination of the request to proceed in forma pauperis reveals 

that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all 

petitions for writ of habeas corpus and summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court has conducted that review.

Petitioner takes issue with the Superior Court of Sacramento County’s denial of his 

petition for resentencing under California’s “Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012,” Cal. Penal 

Code § 1170.126. However, a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court can only be granted 

for a violation of federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), and petitioner has no federal right to be 

Case 2:16-cv-00261-MCE-CKD Document 9 Filed 03/08/16 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

27

28

2

resentenced under Cal. Penal Code § 1170.126. While petitioner asserts the manner in which his 

superior court petition was denied violates both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of 

the Fourteenth Amendment, he fails to allege any facts which even suggest as much. See e.g.

Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996) (habeas petitioner cannot transform a state 

law claim into a federal claim by merely asserting a violation of due process).

For these reasons, the court will recommend that petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas 

corpus be summarily dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HERBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis (ECF No. 2 & 8) is granted.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed; and

2. This case be closed.

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 fourteen 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: March 8, 2016

1

carl0261.dis

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00261-MCE-CKD Document 9 Filed 03/08/16 Page 2 of 2