Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04218/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04218-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard H. Chu
Petitioner
San Francisco County Superior Court
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RICHARD H. CHU, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY 

SUPERIOR COURT, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 19-cv-04218-PJH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Re: Dkt. No. 8 

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The original petition was dismissed with leave to amend 

and petitioner has filed an amended petition. 

DISCUSSION 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

This court may entertain a petition for 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); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet 

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An 

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody 

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief available to 

the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules 

Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the 

petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” 

Case 4:19-cv-04218-PJH Document 10 Filed 10/02/19 Page 1 of 3
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 

1970)). 

LEGAL CLAIMS 

As grounds for federal habeas relief petitioner seeks review pursuant to 

Proposition 57 and that a parole eligibility date be set for him.1 California's Proposition 

57, approved by voters in November 2016, makes parole more available for certain 

felons convicted of nonviolent crimes. Cal. Const. art. I, § 32. 

To the extent petitioner claims that California law has been violated and no parole 

eligibility date has been set, any such claim is dismissed because federal habeas relief is 

not available for state law errors. A “federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus to a 

state prisoner ‘only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or 

laws or treaties of the United States.’” Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011) 

(citations omitted). 

Petitioner was also instructed to discuss what claims had been exhausted in state 

court and was informed that this court can only consider claims that have been presented 

to the California Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 

509, 515-16 (1982). Petitioner has failed to address exhaustion in his amended petition. 

To the extent petitioner could present a federal claim, any such claim appears to be 

unexhausted. For all these reasons, this case is dismissed. If petitioner exhausts a 

proper federal claim, he may file a new petition in this court. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The motion to amend is (Docket No. 9) is GRANTED and the court has 

considered the amended petition 

2. The petition is DISMISSED for the reasons set forth above. Because 

reasonable jurists would not find the result here debatable, a certificate of appealability 

(“COA”) is DENIED. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000) (standard for 

 

1 Petitioner was sentenced to 12 years in 2018 for robbery and admitted to prior separate 

robbery convictions. Docket No. 9 at 8-9. 

Case 4:19-cv-04218-PJH Document 10 Filed 10/02/19 Page 2 of 3
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

COA). The clerk shall close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 2, 2019 

/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:19-cv-04218-PJH Document 10 Filed 10/02/19 Page 3 of 3