Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08163/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08163-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David E. Edwards
Petitioner
R. Neuschmid
Respondent

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID E. EDWARDS,

Petitioner, 

 v.

R. NEUSCHMID,

Respondent. /

No. C 19-8163 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at California State Prison, Solano, in

Vacaville, California. He has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §

2254 challenging a decision by prison officials to restrict his earnings of “good time” credits to

fifteen percent pursuant to California Penal Code Section 2933.1. Prison officials have imposed

that restriction based upon the 2005 judgment from Santa Clara County Superior Court, which

indicates that the trial court imposed the credit restriction under section 2933.1 as part of

petitioner’s sentence. 

Petitioner argues in the instant petition that the trial court should not have imposed that

restriction, nor should prison officials be applying it to him, because he was not convicted of

an1 offense that qualifies for the credit restriction under section 2933.1. Petitioner made this

claim in a habeas petition filed in the Santa Clara Superior Court, which found that petitioner’s

conviction of several counts of residential burglary are qualifying convictions for section

2933.1 under California law. Petitioner raised this claim in habeas petitions to the California

Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court, both of which were summarily denied. 

The petition must be dismissed for at least two reasons, one procedural and one

Case 3:19-cv-08163-WHA Document 4 Filed 01/13/20 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

substantive. First, this is the second federal habeas petition in which petitioner challenges the

same state court judgment from 2005. The prior petition was filed in 2008, challenged that

judgment on multiple grounds, and was denied on its merits. See Edwards v. Sisto, No. C 08-

02842 WHA (PR) (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2011). The denial was affirmed on appeal. See Edwards

v. Swarthout, No. 11-16337 (9th Cir. July 18, 2013). A second or successive petition may not

be filed in the district court unless the petitioner first obtains from the United States Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit an order authorizing this court to consider the petition. See 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner has not obtained the necessary authorization from the Court

of Appeals to bring a second or successive habeas petition challenge the 2005 state court

judgment that he challenges here. Consequently, he cannot obtain federal habeas relief based

upon this petition.

Second, even if the instant petition were procedurally proper, it fails because petitioner’s

claim is based upon an interpretation of state law that was rejected by the state courts, which are

the final arbiters of state law. A state court’s interpretation of state law, including one

announced on appeal of the challenged conviction, binds a federal court sitting in habeas

corpus. Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005); Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 629

(1988). The summary opinions by the California Court of Appeals and the California Supreme

Court denying this claim are presumed to have adopted the superior court’s reasoned opinion. 

See Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188, 1192-93 (2018) (when confronted with an unexplained

decision from state court, “the federal court should ‘look through’ the unexplained decision to

the last related state-court decision that does provide a relevant rationale. It should then

presume that the unexplained decision adopted the same reasoning.” ). In denying his habeas

petition, the state court interpreted section 2933.1, distinguished the California case law upon

which petitioner relied, and concluded that under state law, petitioner’s convictions for

residential burglary based upon his agents’ defrauding the victims in their homes qualify for the

time credit restrictions of section 2933.1. That determination of state law is binding here and

precludes granting petitioner federal habeas relief on his claim. 

Case 3:19-cv-08163-WHA Document 4 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For these reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. No certificate

of appealability is warranted in this case because a reasonable jurist would not find the

dismissal of this petition debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January , 2020.

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13

Case 3:19-cv-08163-WHA Document 4 Filed 01/13/20 Page 3 of 3