Oliver v. King
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JAFFAR Y. OLIVER,
No. 2:16-cv-1693 MCE CKD P
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner, a civil detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1, “Pet.”) Before the court is respondent’s
motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cognizable federal claim. (ECF No. 22.)
Petitioner has not opposed the motion, nor filed any response.
Petitioner’s sole claim is that the Department of State Hospitals failed to provide annual
evaluations of petitioner as required by California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). (Pet.
at 5.) The California Supreme Court denied petitioner’s claim that his rights were violated under
the SVPA. (Pet. at 4 & 16.)
A writ of habeas corpus is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) only on the basis of some
transgression of federal law binding on the state courts. Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1085
(9th Cir. 1985); Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 1983). It is unavailable for
alleged error in the interpretation or application of state law. Middleton, 768 F.2d at 1085; see
also Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that a petitioner “may not
transform a state-law issue into a federal one merely by asserting a violation of due process.”).
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 provides for
summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and
any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Upon
review, the undersigned concludes that the petition fails to state a federal claim and should be
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that respondent’s motion to dismiss
(ECF No. 22) be granted and this case closed.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Dated: February 27, 2017
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2 / oliv1693.mtd
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?