Brandon Escalante Lee v. CSP-Corcoran Prison

Filing 6

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order why this action should not be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable habeas claim. [See document for further information.] (es)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
right” at the time of the events underlying his conviction. Id. at 3. He requests to be
“released for credit for time served and/or exonerated for a community based half-way
house for 30-90 days.” Id.
II.

DISCUSSION

Federal habeas relief is available to state inmates who are “in custody in violation of
the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). “Absent a
showing of fundamental unfairness, a state court’s misapplication of its own sentencing laws
does not justify federal habeas relief.” Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 469 (9th Cir. 1994).
“A habeas petitioner must show that an alleged state sentencing error was ‘so arbitrary or
capricious as to constitute an independent due process violation.’” Nelson v. Biter, 33 F.
Supp. 3d 1173, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (quoting Richmond v. Lewis, 506 U.S. 40, 50 (1992)).
Here, Petitioner’s claim is premised on the change in California law occasioned by
AB 600. See Dkt. 1 at 3-5. AB 600, which took effect on January 1, 2024,
amended California Penal Code section 1172.1 “to allow a trial court, on its own motion, to
recall a sentence and resentence a defendant when ‘applicable sentencing laws at the time of
the original sentencing are subsequently changed by new statutory authority or case
law.’” People v. Dain, 99 Cal. App. 5th 399, 412 (2024) (quoting Cal. Penal Code § 1172.1
(a)(1), as amended by Stats. 2023, ch. 446, § 2.)). Prior to January 1, 2024, trial courts
lacked authority to do so unless the sentence was unauthorized or the Secretary of the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation recommended the sentence be
recalled. See People v. Codinha, 92 Cal. App. 5th 976, 986-97 (2023).
Here, Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable on federal habeas review because it is
premised exclusively on an issue of state law, namely, whether the trial court should
exercise its discretion under section 1172.1 to recall his sentence and resentence him. See,
e.g., Fritz v. California, No. 24-2563, 2024 WL 5010017, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2024)
(“Any question as to the applicability AB 600 to petitioner does not state a claim for federal
habeas relief because challenges to a state court’s interpretation or application of state
sentencing laws does not give rise to a federal question cognizable in federal habeas.”);
Haney v. Lundy, No. 24-03159, 2024 WL 4329074, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 15, 2024) (holding
that petitioner’s claim he was entitled to resentencing under AB 600 does not merit federal
habeas relief “as such a claim involves only the application of state sentencing laws and thus
does not give rise to a federal question”). Thus, the Petition fails to state a cognizable federal
habeas claim.
Moreover, Petitioner has not demonstrated that he has exhausted state court
remedies with respect to the claim in his Petition. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), federal habeas
relief may not be granted unless a petitioner has exhausted the remedies available in state
court. Exhaustion requires that the petitioner’s contentions be fairly presented to the state
CV-90 (12/02)

CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk: nb

Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
courts, see Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2011), and disposed of on the
merits by the highest court of the state, see Greene v. Lambert, 288 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th
Cir. 2002). A claim has not been fairly presented unless the prisoner has described in the
state-court proceedings both the operative facts and the federal legal theory on which his
claim is based. See Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-66 (1995) (per curiam).
A federal court may raise a habeas petitioner’s failure to exhaust state remedies sua
sponte. See Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 855-56 (9th Cir.
1992) (as amended). The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating he has exhausted
available state remedies. See Williams v. Craven, 460 F.2d 1253, 1254 (9th Cir. 1972) (per
curiam). Further, as a matter of comity, a federal court will not entertain a habeas petition
unless the petitioner has exhausted the available state judicial remedies on every ground
presented in it. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518-19 (1982).
As discussed above, Petitioner’s claims are premised on changes to California law
that took effect January 1, 2024. It does not appear that Petitioner has filed any habeas
petitions in either the California Court of Appeal or the California Supreme Court since that
date. See Cal. App. Cts. Case Info. http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/ (search for
“Branden” and “Escalante” in 2nd App. Dist. and Cal. Sup. Ct.) (last visited on January 3,
2025). As such, the Court has concerns as to whether Petitioner has fairly presented any
claim premised on changes to California law under AB 600 or any other ground for relief
based in federal law before the California Supreme Court.
III.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing no later than
twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order why this action should not be
dismissed for failure to state a cognizable habeas claim.
Petitioner may instead request a voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). The Clerk of the Court has attached a Notice of Dismissal
form.
Petitioner is warned that his failure to timely respond to this Order will result in the
Court recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice for some or all of the
reasons listed above and for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

CV-90 (12/02)

CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk: nb

Page 3 of 3