Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04218/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04218-0/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 DISMISSING PETITION WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His conviction occurred in San Francisco County, which is 

in this district, so venue is proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 

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 8 Filed 08/22/19 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. It is not clear if he seeks to be paroled or to be resentenced. He also 

discusses certain enhancements from his sentencing. 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, 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 

has not identified any violations of his federal constitutional rights in this petition, nor is it 

clear what claim was exhausted in state court. This court can only consider claims that 

have been presented to the California Supreme Court. 

Petitioner is also informed, the text of Proposition 57 does not provide for existing 

prisoners to be resentenced. Although the state court cases addressing application of 

Proposition 57 are all unpublished decisions, they have “uniformly state[d] that 

Proposition 57 creates a mechanism for parole consideration, not a vehicle for 

resentencing.” Daniels v. California Dep't of Corr. and Rehab., 2018 WL 489155, at *4 

(E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2018). See, e.g., People v. Patton, 2018 WL 316967 (Cal. Ct. App. 

Jan. 8, 2018) (unpublished) (after trial court denied petition for resentencing on the 

ground that there was no resentencing option under Proposition 57 because it only 

provided a parole opportunity for certain inmates, Wende brief was filed in court of 

appeal; court of appeal rejected the appeal because a review of the record disclosed no 

arguable issues on appeal); People v. Smith, 2017 WL 6350319, *1-2 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 

13, 2017) (unpublished) (same); People v. Harris, 2017 WL 4230834, *2 (Cal. Ct. App. 

Case 4:19-cv-04218-PJH Document 8 Filed 08/22/19 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

Sept. 25, 2017) (unpublished) (“even if appellant were eligible for relief under Proposition 

57, he would be entitled only to parole consideration, not the resentencing or sentence 

modification he sought in his motion. Any determination as to appellant's right to parole 

must be made, in the first instance, by the appropriate agency”). The petition is 

dismissed with leave to amend to provide more information on his claim with respect to 

the legal standards and cases set forth above. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 7) is GRANTED. 

2. The petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the 

standards set forth above. The amended petition must be filed no later than September 

21, 2019, and carry the words AMENDED PETITION on the first page. Failure to amend 

within the designated time will result in the dismissal of the petition. 

3. Petitioner must keep the court informed of any change of address and must 

comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the 

dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 

41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 22, 2019 

 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:19-cv-04218-PJH Document 8 Filed 08/22/19 Page 3 of 3