Oliver v. King

Filing 23

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 2/27/2017 RECOMMENDING respondent's 22 motion to dismiss be granted and this case closed. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAFFAR Y. OLIVER,

12

No. 2:16-cv-1693 MCE CKD P

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

AUDREY KING,

15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner, a civil detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas

18

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1, “Pet.”) Before the court is respondent’s

19

motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cognizable federal claim. (ECF No. 22.)

20

Petitioner has not opposed the motion, nor filed any response.

21

Petitioner’s sole claim is that the Department of State Hospitals failed to provide annual

22

evaluations of petitioner as required by California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). (Pet.

23

at 5.) The California Supreme Court denied petitioner’s claim that his rights were violated under

24

the SVPA. (Pet. at 4 & 16.)

25

A writ of habeas corpus is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) only on the basis of some

26

transgression of federal law binding on the state courts. Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1085

27

(9th Cir. 1985); Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 1983). It is unavailable for

28

alleged error in the interpretation or application of state law. Middleton, 768 F.2d at 1085; see
1

1

also Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that a petitioner “may not

2

transform a state-law issue into a federal one merely by asserting a violation of due process.”).

3

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 provides for

4

summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and

5

any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Upon

6

review, the undersigned concludes that the petition fails to state a federal claim and should be

7

dismissed.

8
9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that respondent’s motion to dismiss
(ECF No. 22) be granted and this case closed.

10

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

11

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

12

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

13

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

14

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

15

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

16

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to

17

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

18

Dated: February 27, 2017

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2 / oliv1693.mtd

27
28
2