Jones v. Bludworth et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. 2 Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. COA denied. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 8/5/2020. Mailed to Jones. (TAG)

Case 9:20-cv-00109-DLC Document 4 Filed 08/05/20 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
JUSTIN GEORGE JONES,

Cause No. CV 20-109-M-DLC

Petitioner,
ORDER
vs.
WARDEN BLUDWORTH;
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF MONTANA,
Respondents.

On July 15, 2020, Petitioner Justin George Jones filed this action under 28
U.S.C. § 2254.1 Jones is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. For the reasons set
forth below, Jones’ petition will be denied.
I.

Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
Jones moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). Although he

has not yet provided the requisite prisoner account statement, there is no reason to
delay this matter further. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
II.

28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition
The Court is required to screen all actions brought by prisoners who seek

See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (pro se prisoner’s document deemed filed at the time
prisoner delivers it to prison authorities).
1

1

Case 9:20-cv-00109-DLC Document 4 Filed 08/05/20 Page 2 of 6

relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court must dismiss a habeas petition or portion
thereof if the prisoner raises claims that are legally frivolous or fails to state a basis
upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). The Court must
dismiss a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 Governing Section 2254
Cases. Because Jones’ claim is not cognizable in federal habeas, his petition will
be denied.
In August of 2015, Jones’ suspended sentence for Sexual Assault was
revoked in Montana’s Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County. (Doc. 1
at 2-3.) At that same time, following a guilty plea, Jones also was convicted of a
new count of Sexual Assault. Id. at 3.2 Jones indicates he did not file a direct
appeal, did not seek postconviction relief, and did not file a state habeas corpus
petition. Id. at 3-4.
In his petition before this Court, Jones asserts he was denied credit for the
time he served on supervision. Id. at 4, ¶ 13(A). Jones asks this Court to either
award him credit for the time he served on supervision or state the reasons why the
credit has been denied. Id. at 7, ¶ 16.
Federal habeas relief is available only for violations of the federal

2

See also, Montana Correctional Offender Network:
https://app.mt.gov/conweb/Offender/2085947/ (accessed August 4, 2020).

2

Case 9:20-cv-00109-DLC Document 4 Filed 08/05/20 Page 3 of 6

Constitution, laws, and treaties. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S.
62, 67-68, (1991) (federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law).
“[E]rrors of state law do not concern us unless they rise to the level of a
constitutional violation.” Oxborrow v. Eikenberry, 877 F.2d 1395, 1400 (9th Cir.
1989). Generally, challenges to a state's application of its own sentencing laws are
not cognizable on federal habeas review. See Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780
(1990) (claim regarding a state's application of aggravating circumstances was not
cognizable because it concerned an error of state law). “Absent a showing of
fundamental unfairness, a state court's misapplication of its own sentencing laws
does not justify federal habeas relief.” Christian v. Rhode, 41 F. 3d 461, 469 (9th
Cir. 1994). To state a cognizable federal habeas claim based on a claimed state
sentencing error, a petitioner must show that the error was “so arbitrary or
capricious as to constitute an independent due process” violation. Richmond v.
Lewis, 506 U.S. 40, 50 (1992).
Jones’ sole claim is that the state court incorrectly denied him credit for the
time he served on probation prior to the revocation of his sentence. While there
are other statutory hurdles that likely preclude relief, including statute of
limitations and exhaustion and/or procedural default, they matter not at this
juncture, because the claim Jones presents is not cognizable in federal habeas.

3

Case 9:20-cv-00109-DLC Document 4 Filed 08/05/20 Page 4 of 6

To the extent that Jones asks this Court to review the interpretation and
application of a purported state sentencing error, such error is not a cognizable
ground for relief in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. See, Bradshaw v. Richey,
546 U.D. 74, 76 (2005) (A state court’s interpretation of state law is binding on a
federal habeas court); Hendricks v. Zenon, 993 F. 2d 664, 674 (9th Cir. 1993)
(claim exclusively concerned with state law not cognizable in federal habeas);
Mendez v. Small, 298 F. 3d 1154, 1158 (9th Cir. 2002)(“[a] state court has the last
word on interpretation of state law”)(citations omitted); see also Estelle, 502 U.S.
at 67-68 (“we reemphasize that it is not the province of a federal habeas court to
reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions”); Bonin v. Calderon,
59 F. 3d 815, 841 (9th Cir. 1995) (violation of a “state law right does not warrant
habeas corpus relief”); Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 789 (1990) (“Federal habeas
corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law”); Peltier v. Wright, 15 F. 3d 860,
861-2 (9th Cir. 1994) (generally federal habeas corpus relief unavailable for errors
of state law). Further, Jones has not made a showing the purported error that
occurred in his case is “so arbitrary or capricious as to constitute an independent
due process violation.” Lewis, 497 U.S. at 780. At most, Jones has advanced what
he believes to be an error of state law. While Jones may disagree with the state
court’s decision to deny him credit, under state law, for the time served on
probation, such disagreement is does not create a viable federal constitutional
4

Case 9:20-cv-00109-DLC Document 4 Filed 08/05/20 Page 5 of 6

claim.
Finally, federal district courts, as courts of original jurisdiction, do not serve
as appellate tribunals to review errors allegedly committed by state courts.
MacKay v. Pfeil, 827 F. 2d 540, 543 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Atlantic Coast Line R.
Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 296 (1970)(“lower
federal courts possess no power whatever to sit in direct review of state court
decisions”). It would be entirely inappropriate for this Court to review and/or
modify the state sentence as suggested by Jones. For all of these reasons, the
petition is denied.
III.

Certificate of Appealability

“The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it
enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11(a), Rules governing § 2254
Proceedings. A COA should issue as to those claims on which a petitioner makes
a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). The standard is satisfied if “jurists of reason could disagree with the
district court’s resolution of [the] constitutional claims” or “conclude the issues
presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000)).
Jones has failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional
5

Case 9:20-cv-00109-DLC Document 4 Filed 08/05/20 Page 6 of 6

right. Additionally, because Jones’ claim is not cognizable in federal habeas,
jurists would find no basis to encourage further proceedings. A certificate of
appealability is denied.
Based on the foregoing, the Court enters the following:
ORDER
1. Jones’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is
GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall waive payment of the filing fee.
2. Jones’ Petition (Doc. 1) is DENIED.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of
Respondents and against Petitioner.
4. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
DATED this 5th day of August, 2020.

/s/ Dana L. Christensen
Dana L. Christensen
United States District Court Judge

6