(HC) Cepeda v. Bonta

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 7, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-02014
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID DANIEL CEPEDA, Case No. 2:23-cv-02014-DAD-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A VIABLE FEDERAL 14 ROB BONTA, HABEAS CLAIM 15 Respondent. ECF No. 7 16 17 Petitioner, a former state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas 18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. I found his previous petition deficient because it was time-barred 19 and because his claims related to being placed on a sex-offender registry were non-cognizable for 20 the purposes of § 2254. ECF No. 6. The amended petition, ECF No. 7, suffers from the same 21 defects, and I now recommend this action be dismissed. 22 The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 23 Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine 24 the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 25 petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); 26 Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 27 As before, the underlying conviction that petitioner is attacking appears to have been 28 1 finalized in June 2008. ECF No. 7 at 1. As I previously explained, the age of the conviction 2 ensures that it falls well beyond the one-year statute of limitations contained in the Anti- 3 Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 4 410 (2005). In the amended petition, petitioner argues that “the passage of time does not fix a 5 fundamentally flawed outcome of an illegally obtained conviction.” ECF No. 7 at 3. That may 6 be, but the statute of limitations contained in AEDPA is legally binding, and it would be 7 meaningless if any petitioner could circumvent it simply by arguing that, in adhering to it, illegal 8 convictions would be allowed to stand. The alleged illegality of the underlying conviction is the 9 crux of every habeas petition filed in federal court. 10 I also reject petitioner’s claims regarding his placement on a sex-offender registry for the 11 same reasons explained in my previous order. He is no longer in prison custody and, as I noted in 12 my last order, placement on a sex offender registry does not state a viable claim for § 2254 13 purposes. See Henry v. Lungren, 164 F.3d 1240, 1241-1242 (9th Cir. 1999) (rejecting the 14 petitioner’s argument that California’s sex offender registry requirement rendered him still “in 15 custody”). 16 Given that the amended petition does not suggest that the deficiencies in petitioner’s 17 claims are surmountable, I now recommend dismissal of this action. 18 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s amended petition, ECF No. 7, be 19 DISMISSED without leave to amend as time-barred and for failure to state a cognizable habeas 20 claim. 21 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 22 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 23 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 24 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 25 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 26 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 27 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 28 1 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 2 | v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ May 6, 2024 Q——— 6 JEREMY D. PETERSON 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28