Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00520-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raymond R. Robison
Petitioner
E. Valenzuela
Respondent

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

RAYMOND R. ROBISON,

Petitioner,

v.

E. VALENZUELA, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00520-LJO-BAM HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING 

DISMISSAL OF GROUNDS ONE, THREE, 

AND FOUR FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 

COGNIZABLE CLAIM

(Doc. 10) 

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court referred the matter to the Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304.

On June 15, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendation in which she 

recommended that the Court dismiss grounds one, three, and four for failure to state a cognizable 

federal claim and that the petition proceed on ground two only. The findings and recommendations, 

which were served on Petitioner, provided that objections could be served within thirty days. On 

July 10, 2015, Petitioner filed objections in which he argued that grounds one, three, and four 

actually constituted federal claims, claiming for the first time that the State courts' alleged illegal 

sentencing violated his rights of equal protection and due process.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), having carefully reviewed the 

entire file de novo and considered Petitioner's objections, the Court finds that the petition clearly 

Case 1:15-cv-00520-LJO-SKO Document 12 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 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

2

indicates Petitioner's intent to challenge the legality of his sentence under state law. Under AEDPA, 

a petitioner can prevail only if he can show that the state court's adjudication of his claim 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. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); 

Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 70-71 (2003); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 413 (2000). 

Petitioner's after-the-fact insistence that the State court's misapplication of its sentencing laws 

violated his federal constitutional rights does not transform Petitioner's allegations that California 

imposed a sentence that was illegal under its laws into a claim cognizable in federal habeas 

proceedings. The Court finds that the recommendations are supported by the record and proper 

analysis, and declines to modify the findings and recommendations based on any point raised in the 

objections.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that the findings and recommendations filed June 15, 2015, 

be adopted in full, dismissing grounds one, three, and four, and directing that the petition proceed 

only on ground two. The Court REFERS the petition to the Magistrate Judge for further

proceedingsincluding directing Respondent to file an answer to the petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00520-LJO-SKO Document 12 Filed 07/27/15 Page 2 of 2