Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00082/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00082-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tuolumne County Court
Respondent
Frederick Williams
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

v.

TUOLUMNE COUNTY COURT,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00082-SAB-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT 

JUDGE

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

I.

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 

habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 

to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” See McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 

(1994). 

By statute, federal courts “shall entertain an application for a 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. 

Case 1:20-cv-00082-DAD-SAB Document 9 Filed 01/30/20 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

§ 2254(a). “[T]he second use of ‘in custody’ in the statute requires literally that the person 

applying for the writ is contending that he is ‘in custody’ in violation of the Constitution or other 

federal laws.” Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 979 (9th Cir. 2010) (emphasis added). See Dickerson 

v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 439 n.3 (2000).

In the instant petition, Petitioner asserts that his sentence violates current California 

sentencing law, as amended by Senate Bill 1393. (ECF No. 1 at 5–6).1 Petitioner asks this Court 

“to modify his sentence under the current sentencing law.” (Id. at 5). This Court does not have 

jurisdiction to modify Petitioner’s sentence. Whether Petitioner’s sentence is lawful under the 

California Penal Code is an issue of state law, and errors of state law do not warrant federal 

habeas corpus relief.2 See Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1, 5 (2010) (per curiam) (“[I]t is only 

noncompliance with federal law that renders a State’s criminal judgment susceptible to collateral 

attack in the federal courts.”); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991) (“We have stated 

many times that ‘federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.’ Today, we 

reemphasize that it is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court 

determinations on state-law questions.” (citations omitted)).

II.

RECOMMENDATION & ORDER

Accordingly, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of 

habeas corpus be DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim.

Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly ASSIGN this action to a District 

Judge.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 

Court Judge, 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 

THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file 

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 

 

1 Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

2 This conclusion does not prevent Petitioner from presenting his claim to the California state courts.

Case 1:20-cv-00082-DAD-SAB Document 9 Filed 01/30/20 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

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned 

United States District Court Judge 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. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 

834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00082-DAD-SAB Document 9 Filed 01/30/20 Page 3 of 3