Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02404/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02404-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeff Macomber
Respondent
Justin Marcus Zinman
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUSTIN MARCUS ZINMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFF MACOMBER,

Respondent.

Case No. 2:23-cv-02404-JDP (HC)

ORDER

SCREENING THE PETITION AND 

OFFERING LEAVE TO AMEND, AND 

DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO 

SUBMIT MATERIALS

ECF Nos. 1 & 10

Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this action under section 2254 and alleges that his 

conviction is invalid because the state lacked jurisdiction over him because he is a “public entity” 

that is incorporated in Idaho. ECF No. 1 at 2. I have reviewed the petition and have determined 

that it fails to state a viable federal habeas claim. I will give petitioner one opportunity to amend 

before recommending this action be dismissed. I will also defer ruling on his motion for 

summary judgment, ECF No. 9, until he files his amended petition and deny his motion to submit 

materials. 

Case 2:23-cv-02404-TLN-JDP Document 11 Filed 03/11/24 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

2

The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine 

the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); 

Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 

As stated above, petitioner alleges that the state court of conviction lacked jurisdiction 

over him. ECF No. 1 at 2. This argument does not give rise to a viable federal habeas claim, 

however. Federal courts have held that, whether a state court has jurisdiction over a person is an 

issue of state law. See Wills v. Egeler, 532 F.2d 1058, 1059 (6th Cir. 1976) (“Determination of 

whether a state court is vested with jurisdiction under state law is a function of the state courts, 

not the federal judiciary.”); see also Rhode v. Olk-Long, 84 F.3d 284, 287 (8th Cir. 1996) 

(“Because a determination of whether a state court is vested with jurisdiction under state law is a 

function of the state courts, not the federal judiciary, the decision of the court of appeals 

conclusively establishes that the trial court had jurisdiction over Rhode.”) (internal quotation 

marks and citations omitted). Plaintiff may address this deficiency in his amended complaint and 

explain why, if at all, his petition should proceed past screening. 

It is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner may file an amended petition within thirty days of this order’s entry. If he 

fails to do so, I will recommend that this action be dismissed.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a section 2254 habeas form with this 

order.

3. Petitioner’s motion to submit material evidence, ECF No. 10, is denied without 

prejudice. He may submit evidence when and if it becomes necessary to weigh it after he submits 

a petition that survives screening.

Case 2:23-cv-02404-TLN-JDP Document 11 Filed 03/11/24 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

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-02404-TLN-JDP Document 11 Filed 03/11/24 Page 3 of 3