Joseph R. Morales, Jr. v. Avenal State Prison

Filing 5

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION to Dismiss 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Failing to State Cognizable Claim; ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Assign District Court Judge to the Present Matter, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/17/15. Referred to Judge O'Neill; 30-Day Deadline. Case assigned to District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill and Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng. New Case Number: 1:15-cv-00669-LJO-MJS (HC). (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12

Case No. 1:15-cv-00669 MJS (HC)
JOSEPH R. MORALES, JR.,

13
14

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
Petitioner, DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS FOR FAILING TO
STATE COGNIZABLE CLAIM

15
16
17

AVENAL STATE PRISON,

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO ASSIGN DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TO
THE PRESENT MATTER

Respondent.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner filed the instant petition for
writ of habeas corpus on May 1, 2015. (Pet., ECF No. 1.)
Petitioner was convicted of first degree burglary on November 19, 2010 in Tulare
County, but contends that the crime should have been reduced to a lesser charge. (Id. at
1.) Petitioner also alleges that his sentence was improperly calculated as six years rather
than four years, and that he should have been released on June 28, 2014. (Id. at 5.)
While Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to relief, he does not contend that any federal
laws were violated during the imposition of his sentence.

28
1

1

On May 7, 2015, the Court issued an order to show cause why the petition should

2

not be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 4.) Over thirty days

3

have passed, and Petitioner has not filed a response to the order to show cause.

4

I.

DISCUSSION

5

A.

6

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:
If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss
the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.

7
8

Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a
9
petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the
10

respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. A

11
petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it
12
appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis
13
v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).
14
B.

Failure to State Cognizable Claim

15
A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner
16
can show that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28 U.S.C. §
17
2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the
18

“legality or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir.

19
1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee
20
Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
21
In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method
22
for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500
23
U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory
24
Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
25
Petitioner seeks release from confinement. Therefore, his claims implicate the fact
26
or duration of his confinement, and are properly presented by way of a habeas corpus
27
petition. However, a district court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by
28
2

1

a state prisoner only on the ground that the custody is in violation of the Constitution,

2

laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(a), 2241(c)(3); Williams v.

3

Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 375 n.7, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 146 L. Ed. 2d 389 (2000); Wilson v.

4

Corcoran, 131 S. Ct. 13, 16, 178 L. Ed. 2d 276 (2010).

5

Federal habeas relief is not available to retry a state issue that does not rise to the

6

level of a federal constitutional violation. Wilson v. Corcoran, 131 S.Ct. at 16 (2010);

7

Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S. Ct. 475, 116 L. Ed. 2d 385 (1991).

8

Alleged errors in the application of state law are not cognizable in federal habeas

9

corpus. Souch v. Schaivo, 289 F.3d 616, 623 (9th Cir. 2002) (an ex post facto claim

10

challenging state court's discretionary decision concerning application of state

11

sentencing law presented only state law issues and was not cognizable in a proceeding

12

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254); Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996).

13

The Court accepts a state court's interpretation of state law. Langford, 110 F.3d at 1389.

14

In a habeas corpus proceeding, this Court is bound by the California Supreme Court's

15

interpretation of California law unless the interpretation is deemed untenable or a veiled

16

attempt to avoid review of federal questions. Murtishaw v. Woodford, 255 F.3d 926, 964

17

(9th Cir. 2001).

18

In this case, Petitioner argues that the state courts improperly denied his release

19

under California laws, but does not raise any federal challenges to the application of the

20

state laws. Without alleging a federal basis for his claims, Petitioner has not presented

21

claims entitled to relief by way of federal habeas.

22

II.

RECOMMENDATION

23

Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that the petition for a writ of habeas

24

corpus be DISMISSED with prejudice. Further, the Court orders the Clerk of Court to

25

assign a district court judge to the instant matter.

26

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned District Judge,

27

pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days after

28

being served with the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file written
3

1

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

2

captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation." Any reply

3

to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the

4

objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

5

may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d

6

834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 17, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4