Raymond R. Robison v. Valenzuela

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal of Grounds One, Three, and Four for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim 10 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/27/15: The Court REFERS the petition to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings including directing Respondent to file an answer to the petition. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

RAYMOND R. ROBISON,
Petitioner,

11
12
13
14

v.
E. VALENZUELA, Warden,

Case No. 1:15-cv-00520-LJO-BAM HC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING
DISMISSAL OF GROUNDS ONE, THREE,
AND FOUR FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
COGNIZABLE CLAIM

Respondent.
(Doc. 10)

15
16

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ

17

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court referred the matter to the Magistrate

18

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304.

19

On June 15, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendation in which she

20

recommended that the Court dismiss grounds one, three, and four for failure to state a cognizable

21

federal claim and that the petition proceed on ground two only. The findings and recommendations,

22

which were served on Petitioner, provided that objections could be served within thirty days. On

23

July 10, 2015, Petitioner filed objections in which he argued that grounds one, three, and four

24

actually constituted federal claims, claiming for the first time that the State courts' alleged illegal

25

sentencing violated his rights of equal protection and due process.

26
27
28

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), having carefully reviewed the
entire file de novo and considered Petitioner's objections, the Court finds that the petition clearly
1

1

indicates Petitioner's intent to challenge the legality of his sentence under state law. Under AEDPA,

2

a petitioner can prevail only if he can show that the state court's adjudication of his claim resulted in

3

a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established

4

Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d);

5

Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 70-71 (2003); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 413 (2000).

6

Petitioner's after-the-fact insistence that the State court's misapplication of its sentencing laws

7

violated his federal constitutional rights does not transform Petitioner's allegations that California

8

imposed a sentence that was illegal under its laws into a claim cognizable in federal habeas

9

proceedings. The Court finds that the recommendations are supported by the record and proper

10

analysis, and declines to modify the findings and recommendations based on any point raised in the

11

objections.

12

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that the findings and recommendations filed June 15, 2015,

13

be adopted in full, dismissing grounds one, three, and four, and directing that the petition proceed

14

only on ground two. The Court REFERS the petition to the Magistrate Judge for further

15
16
17

proceedingsincluding directing Respondent to file an answer to the petition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

July 27, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2