Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00251/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00251-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derral Adams
Respondent
Robert Gonzales Galvan
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

ROBERT GONZALES GALVAN,

Petitioner,

v.

DERRAL ADAMS,

Respondent.

 /

1:10-cv-00251-LJO-DLB (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

DISMISSING CLAIM ONE FROM PETITION

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE

CLAIM

[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 for writ of habeas corpus on February 16, 2010. (Doc. 1) 

Petitioner is challenging his 2001 conviction in the Fresno County Superior Court. More

specifically, Petitioner contends (1) that his plea of guilty was involuntary because he was

unaware of the imposition of a restitution fine, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by

imposing an excessive restitution amount. 

DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the

petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.

1

Case 1:10-cv-00251-LJO-DLB Document 6 Filed 03/17/10 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

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. A petition for

habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable

claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th

Cir. 1971).

B. Failure to State Cognizable Claim-Claim Two

A challenge to the restitution fine does not affect the fact or duration of petitioner’s

custody. See Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747 (1998) (limiting § 2254 habeas to

challenges to fact or duration of custody); United States v. Thiele, 314 F.3d 399, 400 (9 Cir. th

2002) (finding challenge to restitution fine not cognizable on habeas). However, a challenge to

the plea being involuntary because he would not have entered it had he known that the trial court

would impose restitution is cognizable via § 2254. See Torrey v. Estelle, 842 F.2d 234, 235 (9

th

Cir. 1988) (defendant entitled to be informed of direct consequences of plea). 

As previously stated, in Claim Two of the Petition, Petitioner contends that the trial court

abused its discretion by imposing an excessive restitution fine. This claim is not cognizable

under section 2254 because it does not affect the fact or duration of Petitioner’s confinement. 

Accordingly, this claim should be dismissed from the petition. However, liberally construed, it

appears that Claim One of the Petition presents a cognizable challenge to his plea agreement. 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Claim Two of the instant Petition be DISMISSED; and

2. The instant Petition proceed on Claim One only.

This Findings and Recommendation is 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 304 of the

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

Within fifteen (15) 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

2

Case 1:10-cv-00251-LJO-DLB Document 6 Filed 03/17/10 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

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within seven (7) days 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 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 16, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:10-cv-00251-LJO-DLB Document 6 Filed 03/17/10 Page 3 of 3