Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02449/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02449-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
D. Asuncion
Respondent
Willie L. Bolds
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE L. BOLDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. ASUNCION,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-02449-JSC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his sentence.

1

 He has paid the filing fee. 

Because the petition does not state a cognizable claim for relief, it is DISMISSED. 

BACKGROUND

In 1988, Petitioner was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and other related 

offenses in San Francisco County Superior Court. He received a sentence of life in prison without 

the possibility of parole. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in 1990. 

Petitioner indicates that he did not file an appeal with the California Supreme Court. (Petition at 

3.) 

 

1

Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. No. 3.) 

Case 3:16-cv-02449-JSC Document 5 Filed 07/08/16 Page 1 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Petitioner filed a number of post-conviction petitions. (See, e.g., id. at 3-4.) As relevant to 

the claims raised in the instant petition, on April 18, 2014, he filed a petition for a writ of mandate 

to the California Court of Appeal, which was construed as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

and summarily denied on April 23, 2014. (See ECF No. 2 Exh. B at Exh. B.)2 The California 

Court of Appeal explained that it was construed as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because a 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus is the only means for a prisoner to challenge the lawfulness of 

his restraint, and that it lacked merit because it was based on a repealed section of the California 

Penal Code. (See id.) Petitioner thereafter filed several petitions in the California Court of Appeal 

challenging the April 23, 2014, Order, all of which were denied, including two petitions for a writ 

of error coram vobis denied on July 24, 2014, and August 20, 2014, respectively. (See id. at Exhs. 

A & B.) Presiding Judge Humes was on the panel that denied both of these petitions. (See id.)

On March 2, 2016, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the California 

Supreme Court. (See ECF No. 2 Exh. B.) He argued that under California Penal Code Section 

170.1, Judge Humes should have been disqualified from denying the second petition for a writ of 

error coram vobis because he had also participated in denying the first one. The California 

Supreme Court summarily denied the petition for a writ of mandate on April 13, 2016. (See ECF 

No. 2 Exh. A.) 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

This Court may entertain a petition for a 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). It 

 

2 This procedural background is taken from the August 20, 2014 opinion of the California Court of 

Appeal which appears as Exhibit B to the petition for a writ of mandate Petitioner filed in the 

California Supreme Court. The petition for a writ of mandate to the California Supreme Court has 

been filed as Exhibit B to the instant habeas petition. (See ECF No. 2, Exh. B.) 

Case 3:16-cv-02449-JSC Document 5 Filed 07/08/16 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should 

not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not 

entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. 

II. Legal Claims

In his first claim, Petitioner argues that his right to due process was violated because 

Presiding Judge Humes participated in denying both petitions for a writ of error coram vobis. The 

Court is aware of no authority prohibiting Judge Humes from doing so, let alone that doing so 

violates Petitioner’s constitutional right to due process. In any event, errors in the state postconviction review process are not addressable through federal habeas corpus proceedings. Ortiz v. 

Stewart, 149 F.3d 923, 939 (9th Cir. 1998); Gerlaugh v. Stewart, 129 F.3d 1027, 1045 (9th Cir. 

1997). Such errors generally do not represent an attack on the prisoner's detention and therefore 

are not proper grounds for habeas relief. Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir. 1989). 

They instead generally pertain to the review process itself and not to the constitutionality of a state 

conviction. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 2254(i) (claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during state 

or federal collateral post-conviction proceedings not cognizable on federal habeas review); 

Franzen, 877 F.2d at 26 (delay in state habeas proceeding not addressable in federal habeas); 

Hopkinson v. Shillinger, 866 F.2d 1185, 1218-20 (10th Cir. 1989) (state court's summary denial of 

petition for post-conviction relief is procedural deficiency in review process that does no violence 

to federal constitutional rights); Millard v. Lynaugh, 810 F.2d 1403, 1410 (5th Cir. 1987) (denial 

of hearing on state collateral proceedings not addressable in federal habeas), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 

838 (1987); see also Application of Gordon, 157 F.2d 659, 660 (9th Cir. 1946) (allegation that 

state court decided appeal improperly not enough to state claim in federal habeas). Because 

Petitioner’s first claim asserts an error in the state’s post-conviction review process, it does not 

present cognizable grounds for federal habeas relief. 

Case 3:16-cv-02449-JSC Document 5 Filed 07/08/16 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Northern District of California

Petitioner’s second claim also asserts an error in the state’s post-conviction review process. 

He argues that under California Penal Code Section 170.1 the California Supreme Court was 

required to grant his petition for a writ of mandate because Judge Humes participated in denying 

both petitions for a writ of coram vobis. He claims that the failure to grant the petition violated his 

liberty interest protected by the federal constitutional guarantee of due process. Because this 

claim also asserts an error in the state’s post-conviction review process, it is not a cognizable basis 

for federal habeas relief. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. 

Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires a district court to rule on 

whether a Petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability in the same order in which the 

petition is decided. No reasonable jurist would find this Court's dismissal of his claims debatable 

or wrong. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Consequently, no certificate of 

appealability is warranted in this case.

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02449-JSC Document 5 Filed 07/08/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE L. BOLDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. ASUNCION,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-02449-JSC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on July 8, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Willie L. Bolds ID: E-00865

CSP-Lancaster

P.O. Box 4430

Lancaster, CA 93539 

Dated: July 8, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

Case 3:16-cv-02449-JSC Document 5 Filed 07/08/16 Page 5 of 5