Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00300/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00300-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kelly Harrington
Respondent
Shawn P. Johnson
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAWN P. JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

v.

KELLY HARRINGTON,

Respondent.

 /

1:10-cv-00300-LJO-DLB (HC)

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS THE INSTANT

PETITION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

COGNIZABLE CLAIM, DIRECTING CLERK

OF COURT TO TERMINATE ACTION, AND

DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

[Doc. 12]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

 BACKGROUND

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on February 22, 2010. 

(Court Doc. 1.) Respondent filed the instant motion to dismiss on April 23, 2010, for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. (Court Doc. 12.) Petitioner did not file an opposition. 

DISCUSSION

I. Procedural Grounds for Motion to Dismiss

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a

petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not

entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

///

1

Case 1:10-cv-00300-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 06/17/10 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

II. Failure to State a Cognizable Claim

In the instant petition, Petitioner’s sole claim for relief challenges a 2007 amendment to

California Penal Code section 2085.5 as a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. 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. 

In this instance, Petitioner’s challenge to the collection of his restitution fine does not

implicate the legality or duration of his conviction. Therefore, section 2254 is not the proper

avenue for presenting this claim. 

Moreover, Petitioner’s challenge arises solely under California law. Under the plain

language of section 2254, a prisoner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief if he can

demonstrate he is in custody in violation of the United States Constitution or federal laws. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(a). Therefore, a claim arising strictly under state law is not cognizable in a federal

habeas corpus proceeding. Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 41 (1984) (“A federal court may not

issue the writ on the basis of a perceived error of state law.”); Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d

1195, 1197-1198 (9 Cir. 1983). th

In this instance, Petitioner challenges only the 2007 amendment to section 2085.5 and it

relates only to California law regarding the policy of victim restitution. Petitioner cannot convert

his state law claims into federal questions merely by labeling it as a federal due process violation. 

Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9 Cir. 1996). Accordingly, Petitioner’s claim is not th

cognizable as it raises purely a state law question, and the petition must be dismissed. 

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the instant petition for failure to state a

cognizable claim is GRANTED;

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the action; and

2

Case 1:10-cv-00300-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 06/17/10 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. The court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (in order to obtain a COA,

petitioner must show: (1) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

petition stated a valid claim of a denial of a constitutional right; and (2) that jurists

of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its

procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the present

case, the Court does not find that jurists of reason would not find it debatable

whether the petition was properly dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:10-cv-00300-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 06/17/10 Page 3 of 3