Christopher Robert Lute v. Department of Corrections

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 15, 2021
• Docket: 5:20-cv-01226
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | CHRISTOPHER ROBERT LUTE, ) Case No. ED CV 20-1226-DSF (SP) 12 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Y DISMITSSING FIRST AMENDED 13 V. ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS □ CORPUS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ) et al., ) 15 ) Respondents. ) 16 )

17 18 I. 19 INTRODUCTION 20 On June 17, 2020, petitioner Christopher Robert Lute, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). Petitioner’s claims stem from his January 7, 2019 state conviction for destruction of county property, and challenge the order that he pay restitution as a result of that conviction. Pet. at 2, 5-6. 25 On July 6, 2020, this Court, having screened the Petition, issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”), ordering petitioner to explain why his Petition should not be 27| dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, the Court noted that petitioner’s 28 | challenges to the state trial court’s restitution order were non-cognizable claims for

1| federal habeas relief because they were based on state law, and petitioner failed to 2|| contest the legality of his custody. The Court ordered petitioner to either clearly explain why his Petition should not be dismissed or request a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. 5 On August 31, 2020, petitioner filed a First Amended Petition (““FAP”’) in response to the Court’s OSC. Petitioner did not explain how his FAP cured the 7| previous defects identified by the Court. Instead, petitioner once again challenged his 8] restitution obligations and raised a new non-cognizable state sentencing law claim. As 9} such, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. 10 II. 11 DISCUSSION 12 A state prisoner is entitled to federal habeas relief only if he is held in custody in 13] violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. 14] § 2254(a); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S. Ct. 475, 116 L. Ed. 2d 385 (“[I]t is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court 16| determinations on state-law questions.” (citation omitted)). “[F]ederal habeas corpus 17| relief does not lie for errors of state law.” Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67 (internal quotation 18 | marks omitted). 19 In his FAP, petitioner renews his claims that the state trial court’s restitution order constituted an illegal enhancement to the terms of his plea agreement and a 21] breach of contract. FAP at 5. In addition, for the first time, he appears to challenge the state court’s application of certain one-year enhancements to his custodial sentence. See id. 24 As explained in the OSC, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s 25| challenges to the state court’s restitution order because they do not contest the legality 26| of his custody and are based on clearly non-cognizable theories of state law, including 27| breach of contract. Although petitioner adds a challenge to his custodial term in his 28 | FAP, it is similarly non-cognizable because — like his challenge to the restitution order

—it involves a question of state law. Generally, matters relating to state sentencing are 2|| not cognizable on federal habeas review. See Miller v. Vasquez, 868 F.2d 1116, 1118- 3} 19 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that a question of whether a prior conviction qualifies for sentence enhancement under California law is not a cognizable federal habeas corpus 5] claim). “Absent a showing of fundamental unfairness, a state court’s misapplication of 6| its own sentencing laws does not justify federal habeas relief.” Christian v. Rhode, 41 7| F.3d 461, 469 (9th Cir. 1994). Here, petitioner does not claim that the state court’s alleged sentencing errors were “so arbitrary or capricious as to constitute an independent due process or Eighth Amendment violation.” Richmond v. Lewis, 506 10} U.S. 40, 50, 113 S. Ct. 528, 128 L. Ed. 2d 411 (1992). Accordingly, because none of 11] petitioner’s grounds for habeas relief are cognizable, his FAP must be dismissed. 12 HI. 13 ORDER 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered denying the 15| First Amended Petition and dismissing this action without prejudice. 16 17 , r) eS 18| DATED: March 15, 2021 A doe._ Ae rcAer2 19 HONORABLE DALE S. FISCHER 20| Presented by: UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ey 22 23 SHERI PYM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25 26 27 28