Vo v. Ndoh

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/27/2017 SUMMARILY DISMISSING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. CASE CLOSED. (Henshaw, R) Modified on 4/28/2017 (Donati, J).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KHUONG Q. VO, 12 13 14 No. 2:16-cv-2975-EFB P Petitioner, ORDER1 v. R. NDOH, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 2254.2 He asks this court to reverse a ruling by the state court, which dismissed his 19 civil action that he filed in that court against the California Department of Corrections and 20 Rehabilitation. His state court action was dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. See 21 ECF No. 1 at 15, 18. 22 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court is required to conduct 23 a preliminary review of all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. The court 24 must summarily dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to 25 26 27 28 1 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to petitioner’s consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). 2 He has paid the filing fee. 1 relief . . . .” The court has conducted the review required under Rule 4 and concludes that 2 summary dismissal of the petition is required. 3 Fundamentally, petitioner’s claim does not sound in habeas because it does not concern 4 the validity or duration of his confinement. See Nettles v. Grounds, No. 12-16935, 2016 U.S. 5 App. LEXIS 13573 (9th Cir. July 26, 2016) (a prisoner’s claim which, if successful, would not 6 necessarily lead to immediate or speedier release falls outside the “core of habeas corpus”). 7 In addition, this is not the appropriate court for petitioner to seek review of the state 8 court’s dismissal of his civil case. Generally, federal courts lack jurisdiction to review or modify 9 state court judgments. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Company, 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of 10 Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). “[L]ower federal courts do not 11 have jurisdiction to review a case litigated and decided in state court; only the United States 12 Supreme Court has jurisdiction to correct state court judgments.” Gottfried v. Medical Planning 13 Services, 142 F.3d 326, 330 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1041, 119 S.Ct. 592 (1998); see also 14 Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 901 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Stated plainly, Rooker—Feldman 15 bars any suit that seeks to disrupt or ‘undo’ a prior state-court judgment, regardless of whether the 16 state-court proceeding afforded the federal-court plaintiff a full and fair opportunity to litigate her 17 claims.”). 18 Because this court lacks jurisdiction to review the state court’s judgment, this action must 19 be dismissed. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (“If a federal plaintiff asserts 20 as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief from a state 21 court judgment based on that decision, Rooker-Feldman bars subject matter jurisdiction in federal 22 district court.”). 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas 24 corpus is summarily dismissed and the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 25 DATED: April 27, 2017. 26 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?