(HC) Perez v. Parker

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 19, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-03469
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LISA MARIE PEREZ, No. 2:24-cv-3469-CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 LAVELLE PARKER, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent. 16

17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 19 2254 and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) Examination of the in forma 20 pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the 21 application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, the 22 petition should be summarily dismissed because the court lacks jurisdiction over petitioner’s 23 claim for resentencing and release under state law. 24 I. Screening Standard 25 In screening the habeas petition, the court applies the Rule 4 framework of the Rules 26 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Under Rule 4’s standard, if it 27 plainly appears from the petition, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that 28 the moving party is not entitled to relief, then the district court is authorized to summarily dismiss 1 a habeas petition. Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2024); Herbst v. Cook, 260 2 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001). 3 II. Background 4 In March of 2018, in case 16CF06270 in the Butte County Superior Court, a jury found 5 petitioner guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and infliction of corporal injury upon a spouse. 6 People v. Belyew, No. C086800, 2020 WL 5649408, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2020). For 7 sentence enhancement purposes, the jury found true petitioner used a deadly weapon, inflicted 8 great bodily injury, and was out on bail for a felony offense when the offenses were committed. 9 (Id.) The trial court sentenced petitioner to an aggregate term of seven years in state prison. (Id.) 10 Petitioner seeks relief on the ground that she is eligible for resentencing under Assembly 11 Bill (“A.B.”) 600 in case 16CF06270. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) Petitioner has applied to the Superior 12 Court for resentencing and submitted supporting documentation. (Id.) Through this action, 13 petitioner seeks to be granted release under resentencing for A.B. 600. (Id.) 14 III. Discussion 15 “A.B. 600 amended section 1172.1 of the California Penal Code to allow a trial court, on 16 its own motion, to recall a sentence and resentence a defendant when ‘applicable sentencing laws 17 at the time of the original sentencing are subsequently changed by new statutory authority or case 18 law.’” People v. Dain, 99 Cal. App. 5th 399, 412 (2024) (quoting Cal. Penal Code § 19 1172.1(a)(1)). Petitioner’s claim for resentencing under A.B. 600 does not state a federal habeas 20 claim because such relief “is unavailable for alleged error in the interpretation or application of 21 state law[.]” Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985). Instead, federal habeas 22 relief is available to state inmates who are “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 23 treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 24 A question as to the applicability of A.B. 600 to petitioner does not state a claim for 25 federal habeas relief because it solely involves the interpretation or application of state sentencing 26 laws, which does not give rise to a federal question cognizable in federal habeas. See Estelle v. 27 McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (“[I]t is not the province of a federal habeas court to 28 reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions.”). The exception would be if “the 1 state court’s finding was so arbitrary or capricious as to constitute an independent due process or 2 Eighth Amendment violation.” Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990). Here, the petition 3 contains no suggestion that the state court has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner; instead, 4 petitioner merely states she has submitted documents to the state court for resentencing and she 5 also seeks resentencing through the present petition. Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable because 6 it is premised exclusively on an issue of state law, namely, whether the trial court should exercise 7 its discretion under section 1172.1 of the California Penal Code. 8 IV. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party 9 The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English. This 10 information is not intended as legal advice. 11 The undersigned is recommending your petition be summarily dismissed because you 12 raise a state-law issue for which federal habeas relief is not available. If you disagree, you have 13 14 days to inform the court. Label your explanation “Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s 14 Findings and Recommendations” and explain how you are in custody in violation of the 15 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 16 V. Order and Recommendation 17 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 18 1. Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED. 19 2. The Clerk of the Court shall assign a district judge to this case. 20 In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus 21 be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 22 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 24 after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 25 objections with the court. In any objections, petitioner may address whether a certificate of 26 appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 27 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a 28 certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). Petitioner is 1 | advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 2 || District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 | Dated: March 18, 2025 Cad ) ft 4 by ae 4 CAROLYN K DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 4 8, pere3469.scrn. fr 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28