Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00334/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00334-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Manuel Martinez
Petitioner
Sherman
Respondent

Document Text:

1

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

Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition in this Court on March 4, 2020. (Doc. 1.) After 

conducting a preliminary screening of the petition, the Court concludes that the petition fails to present 

any cognizable grounds for relief. In addition, Petitioner’s first and third claims for relief violate the 

statute of limitations. Therefore, the Court will recommend that the petition be SUMMARILY 

DISMISSED.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

Petitioner is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections serving a sentence of 

32 years to life, pursuant to a judgment of the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, entered 

on January 22, 1998, following his conviction by jury of one count of transportation of 

methamphetamine and one count of possession of methamphetamine. Martinez v. Terhune, Case No. 

MANUEL MARTINEZ,

 Petitioner,

v.

SHERMAN,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-00334-JLT (HC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS PETITION

[THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE]

Case 1:20-cv-00334-DAD-JLT Document 8 Filed 04/01/20 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

1:00-cv-06278-OWW-HGB.1 The judgment was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal, Fifth 

Appellate District in an unpublished opinion filed on January 21, 2000. Id. Review was summarily 

denied by the California Supreme Court on March 29, 2000. Id. 

Petitioner previously filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court on August 9, 2000, 

which was dismissed with leave to amend for failure to exhaust, and ultimately dismissed for failure to 

comply with a court order. Id. On March 4, 2020, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition in this 

Court. (Doc. 1.) 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Preliminary Review of Petition

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

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

plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in 

the district court . . . .” Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990). The Advisory 

Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, 

either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an 

answer to the petition has been filed. 

B. Failure to State a Cognizable Federal Claim

The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) states:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an 

application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to a 

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.

(emphasis added). See also Rule 1 to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 

District Court. The Supreme Court has held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a 

person in custody upon the legality of that custody . . .” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 

(1973).

To succeed in a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner must demonstrate that the 

1 The Court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 

1980). 

Case 1:20-cv-00334-DAD-JLT Document 8 Filed 04/01/20 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

adjudication of his claim in state court

(1) 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 (2) 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)(1), (2). In addition to the above, Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases requires that the petition:

(1) Specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner;

(2) State the facts supporting each ground;

(3) State the relief requested;

(4) Be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten; and

(5) Be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner or by a person authorized to sign it for 

the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2242.

Petitioner fails to allege a violation of the Constitution or Federal law. It is well-settled that 

federal habeas relief is not available to state prisoners challenging state law. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 

U.S. 62, 67 (1991) (“We have stated many times that federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for 

errors of state law); Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1997) (“alleged errors in the 

application of state law are not cognizable in federal habeas corpus” proceedings). 

Petitioner challenges the state court’s application of state sentencing laws based on alleged 

new case law.

2

 Such claims do not give rise to a federal question cognizable on federal habeas review. 

Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764 (1990); Sturm v. California Youth Authority, 395 F.2d 446, 448 (9th

Cir. 1967) (“a state court’s interpretation of its [sentencing] statute does not raise a federal question”). 

To state a claim for relief, Petitioner must demonstrate that the state committed sentencing error, and 

that the error was “so arbitrary or capricious as to constitute an independent due process” violation. 

Richmond v. Lewis, 506 U.S. 40 (1992). Petitioner has failed to demonstrate such a violation here, 

because on its face, the petition shows no sentencing error or arbitrariness.

In addition, Petitioner’s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial 

misconduct are untimely. Also, to the extent Petitioner is trying to raise claims by attaching his state 

briefs, those claims are also untimely. The AEDPA imposes a one-year period of limitation on 

2 Petitioner also lists as a fourth claim that “Petitioner’s Illiterate! Needs Assistance!” (Doc. 1 at 14.) However, this is 

clearly not a cognizable federal claim.

Case 1:20-cv-00334-DAD-JLT Document 8 Filed 04/01/20 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

petitioners seeking to file a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 

Pursuant to § 2244(d)(1)(A), the one-year limitations period runs from the date on which the judgment 

became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review. 

According to California Rules of Court, Rule 8.308(a), a criminal defendant convicted of a felony 

must file his notice of appeal within sixty days of the rendition of judgment. See People v. Mendez, 

19 Cal.4th 1084, 1086 (1999) (citing prior Rule of Court, Rule 31(d)). In this case, judgment was 

entered by the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno on January 22, 1998. Martinez v. 

Terhune, Case No. 1:00-cv-06278-OWW-HGB. The judgment was affirmed by the California Court 

of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District in an unpublished opinion filed on January 21, 2000. Id. Review 

was summarily denied by the California Supreme Court on March 29, 2000. Id. The one-year period 

under the AEDPA commenced the following day, on March 30, 2000, and concluded one year from 

that date, on March 29, 2001. Petitioner did not file the instant federal petition until March 4, 2020, 

nor did he file anything in the state courts during the limitations period. Thus, these claims are 

untimely. See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 2001).

III. ORDER

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to assign a district judge to the case.

IV. RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the habeas corpus petition be SUMMARILY 

DISMISSED.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within

thirty days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections with the Court. Such 

a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” 

The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 

///

///

///

Case 1:20-cv-00334-DAD-JLT Document 8 Filed 04/01/20 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

Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00334-DAD-JLT Document 8 Filed 04/01/20 Page 5 of 5