Wildee v. Felker et al

Filing 64

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/2/10 DENYING 61 Motion for consideration. (Dillon, M)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. WARDEN FELKER, et al., Respondents. / Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a judgment of conviction entered against him on June 16, 2005 in the Sacramento County Superior Court. On August 17, 2009, petitioner filed a "Motion of Consideration Letter." In his filing, petitioner requests the court's assistance in participating in what he understands to be a release of non-violent prisoners due to the budget crisis and prison overcrowding. A writ of habeas corpus is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only on the basis of some transgression of federal law binding on the state courts. See Peltier v. Wright, 15 F.3d 860, 861 (9th Cir. 1993); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 119 (1982)). Whether or not petitioner is a candidate for any release program is not relevant to this court's consideration of the issues in this habeas corpus 1 ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BERNARD LUJEAN WILDEE, Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0163 GEB DAD P

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

proceeding. Further, this court does not have the authority under the habeas corpus statute to order petitioner's release on the basis of his eligibility for any state release program. Cf. Miller v. Vasquez, 868 F.2d 1116 (9th Cir. 1989) (habeas corpus is unavailable to remedy alleged errors in the interpretation and application of state sentencing laws). Accordingly, petitioner's August 17, 2009 Motion for Consideration (Doc. No. 61) is denied. DATED: February 2, 2010.

DAD:mou7 wildee163mtn.or

2