Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01193/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01193-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN LORENZO HOKES,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1193 AWI SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 1]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner filed the instant petition on June 6, 2005. 

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it

plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule

4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490

(9th Cir.1990). A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the

petitioner can show that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. §

2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality

or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting,

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

Case 1:05-cv-01193-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 12/13/05 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

In the instant petition, Petitioner requests that this Court declare that his state appeal “is

pending and direct[] the respective superior court to prepair [sic] the record on appeal in the

instant case. In the alternative, issue writ of habeas corpus directing the respective county to

accept for late filing a notice of appeal an[d] to treat the same as though timely filed and grant

such other or further relief as the court deems appropriat[e] in the int[e]rest of justice.” (Petition,

at 4.) Thus, Petitioner is requesting that this Court direct the Superior Court to accept a late

notice of appeal. 

Petitioner’s claim is not proper in this forum. Petitioner is not challenging his underlying

conviction. Rather, Petitioner is seeking this Court to direct the Superior Court to allow

Petitioner to file a late notice of appeal. This Court does not have the authority to direct the state

court to do so and Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable under section 2254. As this is the only

issue raised in the petition, the instant petition must be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable

federal claim.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED for failure to state a

cognizable federal claim; and

2. The Clerk of Court enter judgment.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-

304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after

service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are 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

Case 1:05-cv-01193-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 12/13/05 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

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01193-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 12/13/05 Page 3 of 3