Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01620/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01620-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMIRO GARZA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

ON HABEAS CORPUS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:06-cv-1620-OWW WMW HC

MEMORANDUM OPINION

AND ORDER DISMISSING

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. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

This court may entertain a petition for 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). 

The AEDPA altered the standard of review that a federal habeas court must apply

with respect to a state prisoner's claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court.

Case 1:06-cv-01620-OWW -WMW Document 7 Filed 04/20/07 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

Williams v. Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1518-23 (2000). Under the AEDPA, an application for

habeas corpus relief will not be granted unless the adjudication of the claim “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); Lockyer v. Andrade, 123

S.Ct. 1166, 1173 (2003) (disapproving of the Ninth Circuit’s approach in Van Tran v.

Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143 (9 Cir. 2000)); Williams v. Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1523 (2000). th

“A federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its

independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal

law erroneously or incorrectly.” Lockyer, at 1174 (citations omitted). “Rather, that

application must be objectively unreasonable.” Id. (citations omitted). 

In this case, Petitioner’s contentions are as follows:

Will I got into a fist fight at a program sent to by court so I need a appeal done

first had attempt murder drop down to 1 year program 5 years probation 13 LID 

Will I got 13 years LID for a fist fight at program sent by court know

I need a appeal done

Attempt murder to a program

court gave me got into

a fist fight need appeal

done. Reason late was

not called to law library [sic]

Petitioner makes no reference to the Constitution or laws of the United States and provides

no argument as to how a decision of the California Supreme Court upholding his conviction 

“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). This petition

therefore provides no basis for habeas corpus relief.

Further, the court notes that this petition for writ of habeas corpus is not an appeal. If

Case 1:06-cv-01620-OWW -WMW Document 7 Filed 04/20/07 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

Petitioner wishes to pursue an appeal, he should do so through the state court system.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1) This petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted;

2) The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01620-OWW -WMW Document 7 Filed 04/20/07 Page 3 of 3