Raymond Jenkins v. San Bernardino County

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily dismissing the Petition and this action without prejudice. (es)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND JENKINS, 12 Petitioner, 13 v. 14 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY JAIL, 15 16 Respondent. ) Case No. ED CV 20-2220-AB (SP) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ) SUMMARILY DISMISSING ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF ) HABEAS CORPUS ) ) ) 17 I. 18 INTRODUCTION 19 On October 20, 2020, petitioner Raymond Jenkins filed an unsigned 20 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Petition”). Because petitioner is an 21 inmate at the West Valley Detention Center and therefore in state custody, the 22 Court has construed the Petition as brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 23 Although petitioner filed the Petition in this federal Court, the Petition is on 24 a state form and the face page indicates petitioner intended to file it in the Superior 25 Court. Petitioner complains that the San Bernardino County Jail is abusing its 26 authority and failing to release low-risk inmates in accordance with the 27 Governor’s order. He seeks the release of all such inmates and charges brought 28 1 1 against the jail. 2 Because it appears petitioner has filed the Petition in the wrong court and in 3 any event fails to raise a cognizable federal habeas claim, the Petition will be 4 summarily dismissed without prejudice. 5 II. 6 DISCUSSION 7 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases authorizes the Court to 8 summarily dismiss a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and 9 any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district 10 court.” Rule 4 also authorizes dismissals on procedural grounds. See 28 U.S.C. 11 § 2254, Rule 4 Advisory Committee Note (1976); White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 12 602 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, the Petition must be dismissed because, among other 13 defects discussed below, the Petition does not raise a cognizable claim for federal 14 habeas relief. 15 First, the Petition was not submitted on this Court’s approved form (that is, 16 form CV-69) as required by Local Rule 83-16.1. Instead, it was submitted on a 17 state habeas petition form. As such, it does not contain all the information called 18 for by this Court’s approved form. 19 Second, it appears that petitioner intended to file the Petition in the Superior 20 Court, not this federal Court. Not only did petitioner use a state form, but the 21 Petition’s caption area names the court in which he is filing the Petition as the 22 Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino. 23 Third, petitioner did not sign the actual Petition. Rule 2(c)(5) of the Rules 24 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts requires that all 25 § 2254 habeas petitions “be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner or by 26 a person authorized to sign it for the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2242.” Section 27 2242 similarly requires that any application for writ of habeas corpus be “signed 28 2 1 and verified by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in 2 his behalf.” 28 U.S.C. § 2242. 3 Fourth, and related to the first two problems, it is not clear from the Petition 4 that petitioner has exhausted the claims he seeks to bring in the state courts. A 5 state prisoner must exhaust his or her state court remedies before a federal court 6 may consider granting habeas corpus relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); 7 O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842, 119 S. Ct. 1728, 144 L. Ed. 2d 1 8 (1999). To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a habeas petitioner must fairly 9 present his or her federal claims in the state courts in order to give the State the 10 opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of the prisoner’s federal 11 rights. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365, 115 S. Ct. 887, 130 L. Ed. 2d 865 12 (1995) (per curiam). A habeas petitioner must give the state courts “one full 13 opportunity” to decide a federal claim by carrying out “one complete round” of the 14 state’s appellate process in order to properly exhaust a claim. O’Sullivan, 526 15 U.S. at 845. For a petitioner in California state custody, this generally means that 16 the petitioner must have fairly presented his or her claims in a petition to the 17 California Supreme Court. See O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845 (interpreting 28 18 U.S.C. § 2254(c)); Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882,888 (9th Cir. 1999) (applying 19 O’Sullivan to California). The Petition here gives no indication whether petitioner 20 has exhausted its claim, but given the nature of the claim here, it is unlikely he has 21 had time to exhaust his state remedies on the claim. This was the case as to claims 22 of abuse of authority petitioner sought to raise against the San Bernardino County 23 Jail in an earlier habeas petition he filed in this Court four months ago, in case 24 number CV 20-1125-AB (SP), which this Court dismissed for failure failure to 25 exhaust state remedies. See Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 26 2006) (“Once a district court determines that a habeas petition contains only 27 unexhausted claims, . . . it may simply dismiss the habeas petition for failure to 28 3 1 exhaust.” (citation omitted)). 2 The Court cannot tell for certain on this record that petitioner has failed to 3 exhaust his state remedies, and the first three defects listed above could be readily 4 corrected. If these were the only errors, the Court would grant petitioner leave to 5 amend the Petition. But the Petition suffers from a fifth defect that cannot be 6 corrected. Specifically, the sole claim raised in the Petition is not a cognizable 7 ground for federal habeas relief. 8 A state prisoner is entitled to federal habeas corpus relief only if he is held 9 in custody in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 10 See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S. Ct. 475, 11 116 L. Ed. 2d 385 (“it is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine 12 state-court determinations on state-law questions”). “Federal habeas relief does 13 not lie for errors of state law.” Id. at 67 (internal quotation marks and citations 14 omitted). Petitioner’s claim here is that the San Bernardino County Jail is abusing 15 its authority by failing to follow the order of California Governor Gavin Newsom 16 to release low-risk offenders. The Petition does not identify any federal legal error 17 or other federal legal basis for its claim. Instead, the Petition simply alleges an 18 error of state law or state prison or jail policies. This claim is not cognizable on 19 federal habeas review. 20 III. 21 CONCLUSION 22 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily 23 dismissing the Petition and this action without prejudice. 24 25 DATED: November 16, 2020 26 27 ___________________________________ HONORABLE ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 4 1 Presented by: 2 3 ___________________________________ 4 SHERI PYM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

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?