(HC) Bolin v. Newcomb

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL C. BOLIN, No. 2:24-cv-01534-EFB (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 RACHEL NEWCOMB, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. He filed this action on May 31, 2024 with 19 the caption: “Petitioner’s request/demand for issue of show cause order pursuant to Penal Code § 20 1473.” ECF No. 1. Petitioner paid the $5 fee for the filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus, 21 and the case was classified by the court clerk as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 22 Petitioner has filed two motions to clarify that he seeks a show cause order under 23 California Penal Code § 1473 and not a writ of habeas corpus. ECF Nos. 4, 5. But petitioner 24 does not present a basis for this court to exercise jurisdiction over the case. Section 1473 is a 25 California statute concerning state habeas petitions. This state statute cannot and does not confer 26 jurisdiction on this federal court. See Quintero v. Pfeiffer, No. CV 21-3782-MWF(E), 2021 U.S. 27 Dist. LEXIS 249565, at *19 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2021) (state prisoner’s claim that he was entitled 28 1] || to resentencing under § 1473 was not cognizable by federal court). 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a 3 || district judge to this action. It is further RECOMMENDED that the case be dismissed without 4 || leave to amend as outside this court’s jurisdiction. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 7 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 8 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 9 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 10 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 11 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Datu BEA 13 || Dated: March 7, 2025 Za?T ltl LACN 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28