Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00558/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00558-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Refugio B. Aguirre
Petitioner
Hartley
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REFUGIO B. AGUIRRE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

WARDEN HARTLEY, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:08-CV-00558 LJO SMS HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72-302.

On April 23, 2008, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court.

Petitioner challenges a conviction and sentence out of Kings County Superior Court.

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. 

Case 1:08-cv-00558-LJO -SMS Document 4 Filed 05/15/08 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

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. See Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9

th

Cir.2001). 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 (9 Cir. 1971). th

B. Failure to State a Cognizable Federal Claim

The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Subsection (c) of Section 2241 of

Title 28 of the United States Code provides that habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless

he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution.” 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).

Furthermore, in order to succeed in a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner must

demonstrate that the adjudication of his claim in state court

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 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 the instant case, Petitioner claims the recent amendments to the California Penal Code by

Assembly Bill 50, which purportedly amended §§ 665 and 1170.12, requires resentencing. Petitioner

fails to state a cognizable federal claim, because he does not allege a violation of the Constitution or

federal law, nor does he argue that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law.

Petitioner does not allege that the adjudication of his claims in state court “resulted in a decision that

Case 1:08-cv-00558-LJO -SMS Document 4 Filed 05/15/08 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, . . . or

resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts . . . .” 28

U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges the interpretation of state law, and generally, issues of state law are not

cognizable on federal habeas. 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.' "), quoting Lewis v.

Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990); Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U.S. 333, 348-49 (1993) (O’Connor, J.,

concurring) (“mere error of state law, one that does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation,

may not be corrected on federal habeas”); Oxborrow v. Eikenberry, 877 F.2d 1395, 1399 (9th Cir.),

cert. denied, 493 U.S. 942 (1989) (Federal courts are bound by state court rulings on questions of

state law.). 

Moreover, Petitioner does not explain how the purported changes in the penal code pertain to

his sentence. In addition, after conducting its own research into the specified code sections, the Court

can find no reference of Assembly Bill 50 or changes effected by it. With respect to Cal. Penal Code

§ 1170.12, Proposition 184 amended the statute in 1994, and there is proposed legislation currently

pending in the California Assembly, see 2007 CA A.B. 1133 (NS), 2007 California Assembly Bill

No. 1133, California (Feb 23, 2007); however, there is nothing mentioned in the legislative history

pertaining to Assembly Bill 50. As to Cal. Penal Code § 665, no amendment has been made since

1987. Therefore, the petition should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Since no tenable claim

for relief can be made, the dismissal should be without leave to amend.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas

corpus be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill,

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and

Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. 

Within thirty (30) 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 to

Case 1:08-cv-00558-LJO -SMS Document 4 Filed 05/15/08 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 4

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

filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) 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 (9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00558-LJO -SMS Document 4 Filed 05/15/08 Page 4 of 4