Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00318/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00318-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
M. S. Evans
Respondent
Angel Morales Hernandez
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 1Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGEL MORALES HERNANDEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

M. S. EVANS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-0318 OWW LJO 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 February 10, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United

States District Court for the Northern District of California. By order of the Court dated February 17,

2006, the action was transferred to the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California. In the

petition before the Court, Petitioner raises three grounds for relief: 1) He claims he was not read his

Miranda1 warnings when he was taken into custody; 2) He claims he was denied effective assistance

Case 1:06-cv-00318-OWW -LJO Document 6 Filed 05/08/06 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

of counsel; and 3) He claims he was not advised of his right under the Vienna Convention to

communicate with the Mexican consulate. 

DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a petition

if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to

relief in the district court . . . .” 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. 

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, with respect to Ground Three Petitioner fails to state a cognizable federal

claim. He claims he was not notified of his right to contact the Mexican consulate according to the

Case 1:06-cv-00318-OWW -LJO Document 6 Filed 05/08/06 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 3

Vienna Convention. In Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371 (1998), the Supreme Court reviewed a habeas

petitioner's claim that the state violated his rights under the Vienna Convention by failing to notify

him of his right to communicate with the Paraguayan Consulate. The Supreme Court stated, "it is

extremely doubtful that the violation should result in the overturning of a final judgment of

conviction without some showing that the violation had an effect on the trial." Id., 523 U.S. at 377.

Here, Petitioner fails to show how the violation had any effect on his trial. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Ground Three of the petition for writ

of habeas corpus be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, 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

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 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00318-OWW -LJO Document 6 Filed 05/08/06 Page 3 of 3