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
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?