(HC) Iseli v. Warden

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedJuly 31, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-01628
StatusUnknown

This text of (HC) Iseli v. Warden ((HC) Iseli v. Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
(HC) Iseli v. Warden, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDEN WILLIE ISELI, Case No. 2:25-cv-1628-JDP (P) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARDEN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 19 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. The petition cannot proceed past screening because it brings claims 20 not cognizable on federal habeas review. I will dismiss the current petition and give petitioner an 21 opportunity to amend and to explain why this action should proceed. I will grant petitioner’s 22 application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. 23 The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 24 Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine 25 the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 26 petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); 27 Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 28 1 The petition raises two claims. First, petitioner raises a claim related to his “right to 2 strikes.” ECF No. 1 at 5. He contends that he is a “non striker offender,” and has “rights to a use 3 of three strikes” to reduce his sentence. Id. Second, he raises a claim related to his “right to a use 4 of a pardon” to reduce his sentence. Id. at 4. Notably, the petition contains no facts to support 5 these contentions and identifies no constitutional rights as its basis. See generally id. 6 Petitioner’s claims cannot proceed past screening for two reasons. First, it appears 7 petitioner’s claims are not cognizable in a federal habeas petition because his claims center 8 around his sentencing. See Sethi v. L.A. Cty. Sheriffs, No. CV 19-4710-AG(E), 2019 WL 9 4648497, *4 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2019) (“Matters relating to sentencing and serving of a sentence 10 generally are governed by state law and do not raise a federal constitutional question.”). 11 Petitioner makes no allegations that his sentence violates the constitution, further demonstrating 12 that his claims are not cognizable on federal habeas review. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 13 216, 219 (2011) (holding that federal habeas relief cannot be granted based on errors of state 14 law). 15 Additionally, petitioner’s claims are conclusory. He offers no factual support and does 16 not sufficiently explain his claims in a way that would enable the court to conduct an adequate 17 review of his complaints. See James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that 18 “conclusory allegations which are not supported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant 19 habeas relief”). 20 Rather than recommending immediate dismissal, I will permit petitioner to amend his 21 petition and better explain the nature of his claims and why they should proceed. If petitioner 22 fails to amend within thirty days, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 23 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 24 1. The petition, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 25 2. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 26 3. Within thirty days from service of this order, petitioner shall file either (1) an 27 amended petition or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 28 1 4. Failure to timely file either an amended petition or notice of voluntary dismissal 2 | may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be 3 | dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 4 5. The Clerk of Court shall send petitioner a habeas petition form with this order. 5 6. Petitioner’s motions for certificate of rehabilitation and pardon, ECF Nos. 7 & 8, 6 | are DENIED without prejudice. 7 g IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ July 31, 2025 q-—— 10 JEREMY D. PETERSON i UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
(HC) Iseli v. Warden, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hc-iseli-v-warden-caed-2025.