Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00390/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00390-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dana Demetrius Bairfield
Petitioner
California Department of Corrections
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

 At the time petitioner filed the instant action, he was incarcerated at the California 1

Medical Facility (CMF) in Vacaville, California and the warden of CMF should have been

named as respondent in this action. See Smith v. Idaho, 392 F.3d 350, 354 (9 Cir. 2004) (citing th

Stanley v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9 Cir. 1994)). Failure to name the proper

th

respondent in a habeas corpus action deprives a federal court of personal jurisdiction over the

petition. See Smith, at 355. The lack of personal jurisdiction is a defect that may be waived by

the state, id. at 357, and respondent has not raised the absence of personal jurisdiction as a

ground for dismissal. 

 The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is identified in the 2

petition by its former appellation, the California Department of Corrections.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANA DEMETRIUS BAIRFIELD,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-0390 MCE JFM P

vs.

C.D.C., 

1

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner claims that the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) failed to properly apply credits awarded

2

against a prison sentence imposed in November 2003. Petitioner paroled from that prison

Case 2:05-cv-00390-MCE -JFM Document 13 Filed 04/04/07 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

 In the answer, respondent also states that petitioner was arrested in May 2005 on a drug 3

offense, released from custody on that offense, rearrested in June 2005, and released from

custody in July 2005. (Answer, at 2.)

2

sentence in April 2004, returned to prison on a parole violation in August 2004, and paroled

again in May 2005. (See Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed July 11, 2005, at

2.) Respondent contends that (1) the petition does not raise a federal question because petitioner 3

was not in custody on the challenged sentence at the time he filed the petition; (2) petitioner

failed to exhaust state court remedies with respect to the claim raised in the instant petition; (3)

petitioner has procedurally defaulted his claim by failing to exhaust state court remedies; and (4)

petitioner’s presentence credits were calculated correctly. 

A writ of habeas corpus is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only on the basis of

some transgression of federal law binding on the state courts. Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d

1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985), Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 1983). It is

unavailable for alleged error in the interpretation or application of state law. Middleton v. Cupp,

768 F.2d at 1085; see also, Lincoln v. Sunn, 807 F.2d 805, 814 (9th Cir. 1987); Givens v.

Housewright, 786 F.2d 1378, 1381 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Rule 4 of the Habeas Rules authorizes a judge to summarily dismiss a habeas

petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner

is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Review of the

petition shows that petitioner’s claim is entirely grounded in state law and is not, therefore,

cognizable in this federal habeas corpus action. Accordingly, this action should be summarily

dismissed.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action

be summarily dismissed. See Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

Case 2:05-cv-00390-MCE -JFM Document 13 Filed 04/04/07 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

3

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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 Recommendations.” 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).

DATED: April 4, 2007.

12

bair0390.157

Case 2:05-cv-00390-MCE -JFM Document 13 Filed 04/04/07 Page 3 of 3