Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01665/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01665-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeff Macomber
Respondent
Wilfredo Mina
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILFREDO MINA,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFF MACOMBER,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01665-SAB-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT 

JUDGE

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

I.

BACKGROUND

On September 28, 2023, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in 

this Court. (ECF No. 1.) On October 3, 2023, the petition was transferred to the Central District 

of California because Petitioner wrote that the petition is challenging a judgment from the 

Riverside County Superior Court. (ECF No. 2.) On November 29, 2023, the United States 

District Court for the Central District of California ordered that the petition be transferred back 

to the Eastern District “because Petitioner was convicted in the Madera County Superior Court, 

as confirmed by the abstract of judgment attached to the Petitioner . . . and in the Petition he 

///

Case 1:23-cv-01665-KES-SAB Document 13 Filed 12/19/23 Page 1 of 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

2

challenges his sentence.” (ECF No. 7 at 1–2.)1 On November 30, 2023, the petition was 

transferred. (ECF No. 8.)

II.

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 

habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 

to file a response, 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, Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

In the petition, Petitioner states that an “unauthorized sentence may be corrected anytime 

for due process.” (ECF No. 1 at 13 (capitalization omitted).) Petitioner appears to assert that “his 

sentence is unauthorized because of invalidated nonpunitive fines and fees under new authority 

of AB 1869 and AB 177”

2

and alleges that the superior court did not address this claim in its 

denial of Petitioner’s state habeas petition and thus, the state court’s denial was “contrary to law 

and [an] unreasonable determination of facts, which denied due process.” (Id. at 15.)

By statute, federal courts “shall entertain an application 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). “Section 2254(a)’s language permitting a habeas petition to be entertained ‘only on 

the ground that [the petitioner] is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of

the United States,’ (emphasis added), explicitly requires a nexus between the petitioner’s claim 

and the unlawful nature of the custody.” Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2010).

To the extent Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief based on the superior court’s failure to 

address his claim regarding allegedly unlawful imposition of nonpunitive fines and fees in 

1 Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

2

“In enacting AB 1869 on September 18, 2020, and AB 177 on September 23, 2021, the Legislature sought to 

eliminate the range of administrative fees that agencies and courts are authorized to impose to fund elements of the 

criminal legal system and sought to eliminate all outstanding debt incurred as a result of the imposition of 

administrative fees.” People v. Hernandez, No. B315983, 2023 WL 3243350, at *16 (Cal. Ct. App. May 4, 2023).

Case 1:23-cv-01665-KES-SAB Document 13 Filed 12/19/23 Page 2 of 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

3

denying Petitioner’s state habeas petition, the Court finds that such a claim is not cognizable 

because “a petition alleging errors in the state post-conviction review process is not addressable 

through [federal] habeas corpus proceedings.” Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir. 

1989). Accord Cooper v. Neven, 641 F.3d 322, 331–32 (9th Cir. 2011). To the extent Petitioner 

seeks federal habeas relief based on the allegedly unlawful imposition of nonpunitive fines and 

fees, the Court finds that Petitioner’s challenge to the fines and fees “lacks any nexus, as required 

by the plain text of § 2254(a), to his custody.” Bailey, 599 F.3d at 981. “Because courts do not 

have jurisdiction over a habeas corpus petition brought pursuant to § 2254 challenging only a 

restitution order,” and “the elimination or alteration of a money judgment . . . does not directly 

impact—and is not directed at the source of the restraint on—[Petitioner’s] liberty,” the Court 

finds that the petition should be dismissed. Id. at 984, 981.

III.

RECOMMENDATION & ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of 

habeas corpus be DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim.

Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign this action to a District 

Judge.

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

Judge assigned to the 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 (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner 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 Recommendation.” The assigned 

District Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

///

///

///

Case 1:23-cv-01665-KES-SAB Document 13 Filed 12/19/23 Page 3 of 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

4

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2023 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01665-KES-SAB Document 13 Filed 12/19/23 Page 4 of 4