Joshua T Woolridge v. Aref Fakhoury
Filing
3
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE; AND DENYING; CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY by Judge Manuel L. Real. (mz)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
JOSHUA T. WOOLRIDGE,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
WARDEN AREF FAKHOURY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
___________________________________)
NO. EDCV 12-62-R (MAN)
ORDER:
DISMISSING PETITION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE; AND DENYING
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
16
17
18
On January 12, 2012, Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a
19
habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”).
20
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
21
Courts provides that a petition for writ of habeas corpus “must” be
22
summarily dismissed “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any
23
attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the
24
district court.”
25
Petition is not cognizable and could not state a basis for federal
26
habeas relief even if amendment were allowed.
27
must be dismissed.
28
Rule 4 of
Here, it plainly appears that the claim raised in the
Therefore, the Petition
BACKGROUND
1
2
3
The instant Petition is Petitioner’s fifth Section 2254 petition
4
filed in this Court stemming from his 2005 state court conviction and
5
sentence (the “Conviction”).
6
habeas petition that was assigned Case No. EDCV 07-1482-R (MAN) (the
7
“First Action”).
8
Section 2254 habeas petition stemming from the Conviction, which was
9
assigned Case No. EDCV 08-1237-R (MAN).
On November 9, 2007, Petitioner filed a
On September 10, 2008, Petitioner filed a second
The second petition raised two
10
claims attacking a restitution fine imposed in connection with the
11
Conviction.
12
petition be construed as a motion to amend the First Action Petition,
13
and the separate second petition action was dismissed.
14
2009, Petitioner submitted a third Section 2254 petition stemming from
15
the Conviction, which alleged five claims.
16
construed as a motion to amend the First Action petition.
17
as so amended, the First Action petition was deemed to include all 16
18
claims
19
Petitioner arising from the Conviction.
On November 24, 2008, the Court ordered that the second
alleged
in
the
three
Section
On April 9,
The third petition also was
2254
petitions
Accordingly,
submitted
by
20
21
The First Action was resolved on the merits, and habeas relief was
22
denied by Judgment entered on May 18, 2010.
Petitioner appealed to the
23
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and a certificate
24
of appealability was denied on July 30, 2010 (Case No. 10-56078).1
25
26
1
27
28
Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the
Court takes judicial notice of the files for Petitioner’s cases in this
district, as well as the dockets for the Ninth Circuit available
electronically through the PACER system.
2
1
On May 11, 2011, Petitioner filed a fourth Section 2254 petition in
2
this district, in which he alleged a single instructional error claim.
3
See petition filed in Case No. CV 11-752-R (MAN).
4
Judgment was entered dismissing the 11-752 action without prejudice, on
5
the ground that the petition was second or successive.
6
not appeal.
On May 24, 2011,
Petitioner did
7
8
PETITIONER’S HABEAS CLAIM
9
10
Petitioner alleges that, after he was convicted and sentence was
11
imposed, the California Legislature modified a statute pertaining to
12
both pre-sentence and post-sentence custody credits, i.e., California
13
Penal Code § 4109.
14
application of that amended statute, so as to alter the custody credits
15
determination made in 2005, when he was sentenced.
16
the failure to apply the statute retroactively to him a federal due
17
process violation.
He contends that he is entitled to a retroactive
Petitioner labels
(Petition at 5.)
18
19
DISCUSSION
20
21
It is well-settled that federal habeas relief is available only to
22
state prisoners who are “in custody in violation of the Constitution or
23
laws or treaties of the United States.”
24
also
25
(1991)(same); Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 221, 102 S. Ct. 940, 948
26
(1982)(federal habeas courts “may intervene only to correct wrongs of
27
constitutional
28
constitutional violation, “it is not the province of a federal habeas
Estelle
v.
McGuire,
502
dimension”).
U.S.
62,
Absent
3
28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254; see
68,
an
112
S.
Ct.
independent
475,
480
federal
1
court to re-examine state-court determinations on state-law questions.”
2
Estelle, 502 U.S. at 68, 112 S. Ct. at 480; Little v. Crawford, 449 F.3d
3
1075, 1083 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006)(observing that a showing of a possible
4
“‘variance with the state law’” does not constitute a federal question,
5
and that federal courts “‘cannot treat a mere error of state law, if one
6
occurred, as a denial of due process; otherwise, every erroneous
7
decision by a state court on state law would come here as a federal
8
constitutional question’”; citation omitted); Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d
9
815, 841 (9th Cir. 1995)(violation of a “state law right does not
10
warrant habeas corpus relief”).
11
12
Generally, a challenge to a state court’s application of state
13
sentencing laws does not create a federal question cognizable on federal
14
habeas review.
15
Ct. 3092, 3102 (1990); Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 522-24 (9th
16
Cir. 1992)(“As the Supreme Court has stated time and again, federal
17
habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.”); Miller v.
18
Vasquez, 868 F.2d 1116, 1118-19 (9th Cir. 1989).
19
fundamental unfairness, a state court’s misapplication of its own
20
sentencing laws does not justify federal habeas relief.”
21
Rhode,
22
Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 506 (9th Cir. 1994)(petitioner’s claim that
23
the
24
cognizable in federal habeas); Hendricks v. Zenon, 993 F.2d 664, 674
25
(9th Cir. 1993)(defendant’s claim that state court was required to merge
26
his convictions was not cognizable).
27
habeas claim based on an alleged sentencing error by a state court, a
28
habeas petitioner must show that the asserted sentencing error was “‘so
41
state
See, e.g., Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780, 110 S.
F.3d
court
461,
469
erred
in
(9th
Cir.
imposing
4
1994);
see
consecutive
“Absent a showing of
also
Christian v.
Cacoperdo
sentences
was
v.
not
To state a cognizable federal
1
arbitrary or capricious as to constitute an independent due process’”
2
violation.
3
(1992)(citation omitted).
Richmond v. Lewis, 506 U.S. 40, 50, 113 S. Ct. 528, 536
4
5
Petitioner’s entitlement to a retroactive application of California
6
Penal Code § 4109 is unclear at this time.
Even the most cursory
7
research reveals that the California Courts of Appeal have wrestled with
8
this issue and have reached contradictory conclusions.
9
last month, the Second Appellate District of the California Court of
10
Appeal (the district in which Petitioner was convicted) opined that the
11
amended version of Section 4109 may not be applied retroactively to
12
California prisoners, such as Petitioner, whose convictions were final
13
when the amendment took effect.
14
(Cal. App. 2 Dist. Dec. 16, 2011).2
15
District found the amended version of Section 4109 to be retroactively
16
applicable.
17
4, 2012).
18
cases involving the issue of the retroactive applicability of the
19
amendment to Section 4109.
20
California Supreme Court has granted review of the issue and will have
21
the final say on the matter.”)(citing ten cases in which review has been
22
granted); Florez, 2011 WL 6276122, at *2 n.2 (“California courts are
23
divided on the retroactive application of the . . . amendment and the
24
issue is now before the Supreme Court.”)(citing cases in which review
For example,
See People v. Florez, 2011 WL 6276122
More recently, the Fourth Appellate
See People v. Hirk, 2012 WL 12869 (Cal. App. 4 Dist. Jan.
The California Supreme Court has granted review in numerous
See Hirk, 2012 WL 12869, at *3 (“The
25
26
27
28
2
Under California Rule of Court 8.1115, the Florez decision and
the other California decision cited herein are not citable in the
California courts, because they are unpublished. The Court cites them
not for precedential value but, rather, simply to provide examples of
the conflicting opinions that exist at this time.
5
1
has been granted).
Thus, Petitioner’s asserted right to have the
2
amended version of Section 4109 applied to amend retroactively his 2005
3
custody credits determination is an open question under California law.
4
5
The Court has construed the Petition as liberally as possible.
6
Having done so, it is evident that the Petition’s allegations set forth
7
only a claim of state law error and do not state any cognizable basis
8
for federal habeas relief.
9
benefit of a state law that may be found not to apply to him.
Petitioner claims to be entitled to the
Any right
10
Petitioner may have to a retroactive application of Section 4109 is an
11
issue still to be resolved by the California Supreme Court.
12
cannot render an opinion on this state law issue, much less determine
13
how
14
California sentencing law.
15
supplant the state courts’ power to interpret state law.
California
law
should
be
resolved
on
this
open
This Court
question
of
Federal habeas review does not exist to
16
17
Given that the question of whether Section 4109 may be applied
18
retroactively to California prisoners is the subject of contradictory
19
state court opinions and is now pending before the California Supreme
20
Court, the denial to Petitioner of a retroactive application of the
21
statute cannot be found to be erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or
22
fundamentally unfair, nor does it implicate any federal constitutional
23
concern.
24
this purely state law issue as a “due process” violation -- necessarily
25
fails.
26
petitioner may not “transform a state-law issue into a federal one
27
merely by asserting a violation of due process,” and “alleged errors in
28
the application of state law are not cognizable in federal habeas
Petitioner’s attempt to create a federal claim -- by labeling
See Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1997)(a
6
1
corpus” proceedings).
2
3
The Petition, on its face, shows that Petitioner is not entitled to
4
relief, and thus, summary dismissal is required pursuant to Rule 4.
5
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
6
prejudice; and Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action without
7
prejudice.
the Petition is dismissed, without
8
9
In addition, pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section
10
2254
Cases
in
the
United
States
District
Courts,
the
Court
has
11
considered whether a certificate of appealability is warranted in this
12
case.
13
85,
14
certificate of appealability is unwarranted, and thus, a certificate of
15
appealability is DENIED.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-
120
S.
Ct.
1595,
1604
(2000).
The
Court
concludes
that
16
17
DATED: Jan. 23, 2012
.
18
MANUEL L. REAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
PRESENTED BY:
22
23
24
MARGARET A. NAGLE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
26
27
28
7
a
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?