Watson v. Gastelo

Filing 14

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/09/18 RECOMMENDING that respondent's motion to dismiss 10 be granted. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed with prejudice. Motion to Dismiss 10 referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DON A. WATSON,

12
13
14

No. 2:18-cv-00986 KJM CKD P

Petitioner,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

J. GASTELO,

15

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

18

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Currently pending before the court is respondent’s motion to

19

dismiss the petition on the basis that the claims for relief are not cognizable and that the petition

20

is wholly unexhausted. Petitioner has filed an objection to the motion and respondent has filed a

21

reply. ECF Nos. 12-13. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends granting

22

respondent’s motion to dismiss.

23

I.

Factual and Procedural History

24

Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder by the Solano County Superior Court

25

following a guilty plea. ECF No. 1 at 1. He was sentenced on July 8, 1988 to 15 years to life in

26

prison. Id. On September 9, 2016, the California Board of Parole Hearings (“BPH”) denied

27

petitioner parole for a period of three years. ECF No. 1 at 16. Petitioner filed the instant federal

28

habeas petition on April 17, 2018 challenging his sentence on the grounds that he has been held in
1

1

custody beyond the base term for second degree murder in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s

2

prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.1 ECF No. 1 at 22. Although petitioner

3

presents this argument as four separate claims for relief, the court finds that they all boil down to

4

a challenge based on the computation of the base term using the parole matrix for second-degree

5

murder. See ECF No. 1 at 16-29. Once petitioner’s good time credits are applied to this base

6

term, his sentence would be reduced to 21 years, an amount of time he has already served.

7

“Petitioner asserts that his [prison] term has expired over 8 years ago and he is entitled to be

8

statutorily released.” ECF No. 1 at 16.2 ECF No. 1 at 29. He is not requesting a new parole

9

hearing. Id.

10

II.

Motion to Dismiss

11

In a motion to dismiss filed on July 13, 2018, respondent asserts that petitioner’s claims

12

for relief are not cognizable in the pending federal habeas action because they are based on state

13

law. ECF No. 10 at 4-6. Respondent asserts that mere errors in state law are not sufficient to

14

establish a constitutional claim arising under the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 5-6. Alternatively,

15

respondent contends that petitioner’s federal habeas application is wholly unexhausted because

16

the California Supreme Court “never reached the merits of Watson’s claims” presented in his

17

state habeas corpus petition. ECF No. 10 at 4.

18

III.

Analysis

19

The federal habeas corpus statute provides a remedy for violations “of the Constitution or

20

laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); see also Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d

21

1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (stating that habeas relief is only available for a violation of federal

22

law that is binding on state courts). Habeas relief is not available for violations of state law that

23

do not implicate federal Constitutional guarantees or for errors in the interpretation or application

24
1

25
26
27
28

See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (establishing prison mailbox rule to determine the
filing date of pro se prisoner’s pleading).
2
Since petitioner is seeking his immediate release from the sentence imposed by the Solano
County Superior Court rather than a new parole hearing, the proper venue for this habeas
challenge is the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) (providing for concurrent
jurisdiction in the federal district “wherein such person is in custody or in the district court for the
district within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced him….”).
2

1

of state law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991) (quoting Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S.

2

764, 780 (1990)); Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1997) (as modified) (stating

3

that “[w]e accept a state court's interpretation of state law ... and alleged errors in the application

4

of state law are not cognizable in federal habeas corpus.” (internal citation omitted)); Middleton,

5

768 F.2d at 1085. Here, petitioner attempts to cast his claims as a violation of the cruel and

6

unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. See ECF No. 1 at 4. However, all of the

7

cases that he cites in support of his petition are based on state law, the California Constitution,

8

and state parole regulations. See ECF No. 1 at 14-28. Put simply, there is no federal

9

constitutional requirement to be released on parole before the expiration of petitioner’s valid

10

sentence of 15- Life. See Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Corrs. Complex, 442 U.S.

11

1, 7 (1979) (“There is no constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally

12

released before the expiration of a valid sentence.”); Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220

13

(2011) (per curiam) (emphasizing that “[t]here is no right under the Federal Constitution to be

14

conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence, and the States are under no duty

15

to offer parole to their prisoners.”). The application of the parole matrix to petitioner’s sentence

16

is purely a question of state law. See In re Butler, 236 Cal. App. 4th 1222, 1228-29 (2015), rev’d,

17

In re Butler, 4 Cal. 5th 728, 732, 734-36 (2018) (recognizing that “‘base terms’ no longer govern

18

the release date of inmates subject to indeterminate sentences” based on changes in state law and

19

refusing to require the Board of Parole Hearings to continue to calculate base terms pursuant to a

20

prior settlement order); see also Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 2403(b). Therefore, this court lacks

21

jurisdiction to review petitioner’s claims for relief. See Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 121 n. 21

22

(1982)).

23

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

24

1.

Respondent’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 10, be granted; and,

25

2.

Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed with prejudice.

26

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

27

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

28

after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written
3

1

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

2

Findings and Recommendations.” If petitioner files objections, he shall also address whether a

3

certificate of appealability should issue and, if so, why and as to which issue(s). Where, as here,

4

the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if

5

the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court

6

was correct in its procedural ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable

7

whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v.

8

Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

9

(2000)). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

10

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

11

Dated: November 9, 2018

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

12/wats0986.157.m.docx

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4