Dixon v. People of the State of California
Filing
9
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/27/2014 GRANTING petitioner's 2 , 8 request to proceed IFP; DENYING petitioner's 3 "Motion For Time Credits Resentencing"; DENYING 7 "Motion For Time Credits Resentencing"; petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is SUMMARILY DISMISSED; and the court DECLINES to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253. CASE CLOSED. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CLARENCE HENRY DIXON,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
No. 2:14-cv-0631 CKD P
v.
ORDER
KAMALA D. HARRIS,
15
Respondent.
16
Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas
17
18
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has consented to have all matters in this action before a
19
United States Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
20
Petitioner has filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Examination of the request
21
reveals petitioner is unable to afford the costs of this action. Accordingly, leave to proceed in
22
forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all
23
24
petitions for writ of habeas corpus and summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the
25
petitioner is not entitled to relief.
26
/////
27
/////
28
/////
1
Petitioner identifies his only claim as “CREDITS / RESENTENCING” and asserts the
1
2
following in support of his claim:
3
Current law allows most state inmates to earn work time credits,
which provide time off of the inmate’s sentence for good behavior
and participation in work, education, or other programs. Most
inmates are eligible for a maximum of one day off of their sentence
for each day they participate in a program, generally referred to as
“day-for-day” credits.
4
5
6
Petitioner has also filed two motions “for time credits resentencing” in which petitioner
7
8
requests that the court increase the rate at which he receives good conduct sentence credit.
9
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody under a judgment of a state
10
court can be granted only for violations of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28
11
U.S.C. § 2254(a). Petitioner fails to point to any basis for granting a writ of habeas corpus here as
12
he does not show, nor do any of the facts he points to suggest, that the rate at which he currently
13
earns good conduct sentence credit amounts to a violation of a federal right. This being the case,
14
petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus will be summarily dismissed.
15
Furthermore, petitioner has failed to present his claim to the California Supreme Court.
16
The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for writ of
17
habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), and a habeas petitioner satisfies the exhaustion
18
requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all
19
claims before presenting them in federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971).
20
Petitioner’s failure to exhaust state court remedies is another basis for summary dismissal of his
21
habeas petition.
22
/////
23
/////
24
/////
25
/////
26
/////
27
/////
28
/////
2
1
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. Petitioner’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 2 and 8) ) is
3
granted;
2. Petitioner’s March 7, 2014 “Motion For Time Credits Resentencing” (ECF No. 3) is
4
5
denied;
3. Petitioner’s March 20, 2014 “Motion For Time Credits Resentencing” (ECF No. 7) is
6
7
denied;
8
4. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is summarily dismissed;
9
5. This case is closed; and
10
6. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. §
11
2253.
12
Dated: March 27, 2014
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
1
dixo0631.dis
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?