Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01159/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01159-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Frauenheim
Respondent
Steven Stacey Pombo
Petitioner

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 First Amended Petition on September 19, 2016. After conducting a 

preliminary screening of the petition, it appears that the petition fails to present any cognizable 

grounds for relief. Therefore, the Court will recommend that the First Amended Petition be 

SUMMARILY DISMISSED.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 19, 1998, Petitioner was convicted in the Stanislaus County Superior Court of

possession of methamphetamine and being a felon in possession of a firearm. (Doc. No. 9.) He was 

sentenced under California’s Three Strikes law (Cal. Penal Code §§ 667(b)-(i) and 1170.12(a)-(d)) to a 

term of 25-years-to-life plus one year on the first count, and a concurrent 25-years-to-life term on the

second count. Petitioner appealed to the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District (“Fifth 

DCA”), and the appeal was denied on November 1, 1999. 

STEVEN STACEY POMBO,

 Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01159-AWI-JLT (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS PETITION FOR LACK OF HABEAS 

JURISDICTION

[TWENTY-ONE DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE]

Case 1:16-cv-01159-AWI-JLT Document 13 Filed 09/26/16 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

On December 30, 2013, Petitioner petitioned for recall of his sentence in the Stanislaus County 

Superior Court under Cal. Penal Code § 1170.126(b). The Stanislaus County Superior Court denied 

the petition on March 14, 2014, finding Petitioner ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law. The 

Court determined that for purposes of Section 1170.126, his present conviction for being a felon in 

possession of a firearm excluded him from consideration. (Doc. No. 9 at pp. 4-5.) On July 8, 2014, 

Petitioner appealed to the Fifth DCA, which summarily affirmed the judgment on December 1, 2015. 

(Doc. No. 9 at p. 5.) Petitioner then filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court. The 

petition was summarily denied on February 17, 2016. (Doc. No. 9 at p. 16.) The summary denials by 

the Fifth DCA and California Supreme Court are deemed to rest on the same basis articulated by the 

superior court. Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (1991).

Petitioner filed his initial federal petition in this Court on August 8, 2016. (Doc. No. 1). After 

conducting a preliminary screening of the petition, the Court found that Petitioner had failed to 

demonstrate exhaustion of state remedies and had failed to sign the petition under penalty of perjury. 

Petitioner was directed to file an amended petition. On September 19, 2016, Petitioner filed the 

instant First Amended Petition. (Doc. No. 9.) The First Amended Petition does not challenge the 

underlying conviction. Like his state habeas petitions, Petitioner challenges the execution of his 

sentence. He disputes the state courts’ finding that he is ineligible for resentencing under Cal. Penal 

Code § 1170.126. He claims the state courts’ erroneous conclusion violates his state and federal due 

process rights.

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. 

Case 1:16-cv-01159-AWI-JLT Document 13 Filed 09/26/16 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

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).

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

(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). 

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). 

Here, Petitioner challenges the state court’s application of state sentencing laws. Such a claim 

does 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”). In order 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.

Cal. Penal Code § 1170.126(b) permits petitions to recall sentences only for those prisoners 

Case 1:16-cv-01159-AWI-JLT Document 13 Filed 09/26/16 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

whose convictions are for “a felony or felonies that [is/]are not defined as serious and/or violent 

felonies by subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7” and who do not meet 

one of the exclusions in Section 667.5 (e)(2)(C). In this case, the crime of being a felon in possession 

of a firearm is not a serious and/or violent felony as described in Section 667.5(c) or Section 

1192.7(c); however, it meets the exclusion set forth in Section 667.5(e)(2)(C)(iii) insofar as Petitioner 

was “armed with a firearm” within the meaning of the exclusion. In People v. White, 223 Cal.App.4th

512 (2014), reh'g denied (Feb. 21, 2014), review denied (Apr. 30, 2014), the state court specifically 

held: 

[W]here the record establishes that a defendant convicted under the pre-Proposition 36 

version of the Three Strikes law as a third strike offender of possession of a firearm by 

a felon was armed with the firearm during the commission of that offense, the armedwith-a-firearm exclusion applies and, thus, the defendant is not entitled to resentencing 

relief under the Reform Act.

Id. 

This Court is bound by the state court’s interpretation in White as to how Section 1170.126 

applies to convictions, such as Petitioner’s, for being a felon in possession of a firearm that occurred in 

1998. Bradshaw v. Richey, 548 U.S. 74, 76 (2005) (per curiam). 

Petitioner’s attempt to transform his claim into a violation of federal constitutional rights by 

general, conclusory references to “federal due process” is unavailing. Langford, 110 F.3d at 1389 (a 

petitioner “may not . . . transform a state-law issue into a federal one merely by asserting a violation of 

due process”). Insofar as this Court is bound by the state court’s determination that no sentencing 

error occurred, Petitioner fails to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. The petition must be 

dismissed.

III. RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the instant First Amended Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 

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 21 days

after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, any party may file written 

Case 1:16-cv-01159-AWI-JLT Document 13 Filed 09/26/16 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

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.” Replies to the Objections shall be 

served and filed within 10 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 Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01159-AWI-JLT Document 13 Filed 09/26/16 Page 5 of 5