Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-04782/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-04782-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

STEVEN A. THORESON,

Petitioner,

 vs.

RANDY GROUNDS Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 12-4782 PJH (PR)

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE

TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING

PETITION WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the Correctional Training

Facility has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

He also applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

 Petitioner was convicted in Sonoma County, which is in this district, so venue is

proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was found guilty at trial of continuous sexual abuse of a child and was

sentenced to twelve years in prison. He says he has exhausted the claims he raises in this

petition.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An

Case 4:12-cv-04782-PJH Document 6 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 3
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

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief available to

the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the

petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” 

Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir.

1970)). “Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject to

summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1108

(9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). 

B. Legal Claims

 As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that he has been denied presentence credits pursuant to California Penal Code § 4019. Petitioner was sentenced on

April 24, 2006. Petitioner states that a new pre-sentence credit law was enacted in 2010

and he wants it to be applied retroactively to him. 

Generally, a claim of state sentencing error does not raise a federal constitutional

question cognizable on federal habeas review. See Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 783

(1990). If, however, the state arbitrarily deprives the petitioner of a state law entitlement in

sentencing him, such as denying him credits, he may be able to state a claim under the due

process clause. See Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343, 346 (1980). Thus, if California law

mandated that a prisoner be given certain credits in a given situation, the arbitrary denial of

those credits may constitute a due process violation. Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350,

1355-58 (9th Cir. 1985).

California Penal Code § 4019 offers prisoners in local custody the opportunity to

earn “conduct credit” against their sentences for good behavior. People v. Brown, 54 Cal.

4th 314, 317 (2012). For eight months during 2010, a now-superseded version of § 4019

that was enacted during a state fiscal emergency temporarily increased the rate at which

local prisoners could earn conduct credits. Id. at 317–18. It appears that petitioner argues

he is entitled to conduct credits under the now-superseded version of § 4019.

Case 4:12-cv-04782-PJH Document 6 Filed 01/04/13 Page 2 of 3
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

3

On June 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court decided that the now-superseded

version of § 4019 does not apply retroactively to prisoners who served time in local custody

before January 25, 2010, i.e., the date the on which the now-superseded version of § 4019

became effective. People v. Brown, 54 Cal.4th 314, 318 (2012). The California Supreme

Court held that the now-superseded version of § 4019 applies prospectively to qualified

prisoners in local custody on the statute's operative date. Id. Because it does not appear

that petitioner was in local custody on the statute's operative date, as petitioner was

sentenced on April 24, 2006, he is not entitled to credits pursuant to the now-superseded

version of § 4019. If this is in fact petitioner’s argument, it is based on an alleged violation

of state law and would not set forth a federal habeas claim. The petition is dismissed, but

petitioner will be provided an opportunity to amend.

CONCLUSION 

1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 5) is GRANTED.

2. Petitioner’s motion to amend the state court judgment (Docket No. 2) is DENIED.

3. The petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the standards

set forth above. The amended petition must be filed no later than February 4, 2013. The

amendment must be on the court’s form for section 2254 habeas petitions, include the

caption and civil case number used in this order, and carry the words AMENDED

PETITION on the first page. Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the

dismissal of these claims. 

4. Petitioner must keep the court informed of any change of address and must

comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the

dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable

in habeas cases). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2013 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.12\Thoreson4782.dwlta.wpd 

Case 4:12-cv-04782-PJH Document 6 Filed 01/04/13 Page 3 of 3