Lopez v. Montgomery et al

Filing 33

ORDER Granting 21 Motion to Dismiss. Traverse or Reply due by 8/26/2019. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on July 26, 2019. (vclc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2019)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADRIAN LOPEZ,

Case No. 18-cv-01333-VC

Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS

v.
M. ELIOT SPEARMAN,

Re: Dkt. No. 21

Defendant.

The motion to dismiss the amended petition is granted. Lopez’s claim regarding the
retroactive application of SB 620 is one of state law; he thus fails to allege that he suffered an
“unreasonable application of[] clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme
Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Lopez cannot “transform [his] state-law
issue into a federal one merely by asserting a violation of due process” or equal protection.
Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996); Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 42 (1984).
Moreover, even if an alleged misapplication of SB 620 could give rise to a federal claim,
Lopez’s claim wouldn’t be successful here because SB 620 was applied correctly. See People v.
Hernandez, 34 Cal. App. 5th 323, 326-27 (2019); People v. Johnson, 32 Cal. App. 5th 938, 94142 (2019); People v. Fuimaono, 32 Cal. App. 5th 132, 135 (2019); Chavez v. Baughman, No. CV
18-08213-DOC (DFM), 2018 WL 5734654, at *1-2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2018). And even if it
wasn’t, the allegedly erroneous application of state law wasn’t so egregious as to amount to a
federal due process violation. See Pulley, 465 U.S. at 41; Walters v. Maass, 45 F.3d 1355, 1357
(9th Cir. 1995). The Equal Protection Clause is not implicated by this claim at all.
Lopez’s original petition and the government’s answer are deemed the operative

pleadings, and Lopez is ordered to file a traverse or reply within 30 days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 26, 2019
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

2