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)

Download PDF
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

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?