Rodriguez v. Sherman

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge James Donato on 7/25/18. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EDUARDO RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 18-cv-01320-JD

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 9
STU SHERMAN,
Respondent.

12
13

Eduardo Rodriguez, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

14

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The original petition was dismissed with leave to amend and

15

petitioner has filed an amended petition.
DISCUSSION

16
17
18

STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in

19
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
20

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v.

21
Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading
22
requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of
23
habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court
24
25
26
27
28

must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting
each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’
pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility

1

of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d

2

688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).

3

LEGAL CLAIMS

4
Petitioner pled no contest in 2008 to charges of voluntary manslaughter and attempted
5
murder and admitted gun enhancements under California Penal Code sections 12022.5(a) and
6
12022.53(c). Petition at 25. Pursuant to a negotiated plea he was sentenced to 30 years in prison.
7
Id. at 16, 25. Petitioner argues that his conviction must be reversed or he is entitled to
8
resentencing pursuant to California Senate Bill 620 which was recently signed into law. Senate
9
Bill 620 provides the trial court discretion to strike gun enhancements in California Penal Code
10
sections 12022.5 and 12022.53. Petitioner argues he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

because the trial court could choose to strike his enhancements.
12
Petitioner was informed that even assuming that the petition was timely, he had failed to
13
present a cognizable federal habeas claim. As noted by the Monterey County Superior Court in
14
denying his state habeas petition, while a trial court now has discretion to strike these
15
enhancements, petitioner was sentenced pursuant to a negotiated plea; therefore his argument was
16
irrelevant. Petition at 25. While petitioner argued his sentence was solely due to the gun
17
enhancements, the superior court noted that petitioner was also sentenced for the crimes of
18
voluntary manslaughter and attempted murder, both of which are violent felonies entirely separate
19
from the gun enhancements. Id. at 26. Petitioner had failed to present a claim demonstrating that
20
he was in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. To the
21
extent he argued a violation of state law, he was not entitled to federal habeas relief. See Estelle v.
22
23

McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991) (“We have stated many times that federal habeas corpus relief
does not lie for errors of state law.”)

24
Petitioner was provided an opportunity to address these deficiencies and he has filed a brief
25
amended petition. Yet, petitioner only cites to a state case and has failed to bring any federal
26

claims. The state courts have already ruled on petitioner’s state law claim and this Court cannot

27
review claims for errors of state law.
28
2

CONCLUSION

1
2
3
4

1.

Petitioner’s motion to amend (Docket No. 9) is GRANTED and the Court has

reviewed the amended petition.
2.

The petition is DISMISSED for the reasons set forth above. A Certificate of

5

Appealability is DENIED. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Clerk shall

6

close this case.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 25, 2018

9
10
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

EDUARDO RODRIGUEZ,

Case No. 18-cv-01320-JD

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7

STU SHERMAN,
Defendant.

8
9
10

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on July 25, 2018, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18
19

Eduardo Rodriguez
634527
CSP SATF
PO Box 5242
Corcoran, CA 93212

20
21

Dated: July 25, 2018

22
23
24

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
4