(HC) Sensabaugh v. Campbell

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 STEVEN SENSABAUGH, No. 1:22-cv-01371-NODJ-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING STATE PETITON FOR RESENTENCING AND DISMISSAL 13 v. (Doc. No. 16) 14 CAMPBELL, Warden,

15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner, has pending a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 18 U.S.C. § 2254 that asserts one ground for relief based on the lack of an ASL interpreter in 19 connection with the proceedings related to his underlying plea-based conviction and sentence for 20 forcible rape. (Doc. No. 1, “Petition”). Before the Court is Petitioner’s one-page form 21 “Petition/Application for Resentencing and Dismissal (Pen. Code, § 1170.22)” dated November 22 7, 2023. (Doc. No. 16). The form, a California state criminal preprinted form—CR-404— 23 permits litigants to check certain boxes and request either a resentencing or dismissal if convicted 24 of a certain state conviction, seek a hearing in connection with the request, and waive an 25 appearance at such hearing. (See generally Id.). Respondent has not filed a response to the 26 petition and the deadline for doing so has passed. (See docket). 27 The form petition references California Penal Code § 1170.22, and Petitioner lists himself 28 as “Defendant,” both of which suggest that Petitioner may have intended to file the petition for 1 | resentencing in California state court. (See Doc. No. 16). Section § 1170.22 permits “[a] person 2 | who is serving a sentence as a result of a violation of Section 647f as it read on December 31, 3 | 2017, whether by trial or by open or negotiated plea [to] petition for a recall or dismissal of 4 | sentence before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case.” Former 5 | section 647f, which was enacted in 1988 (Stats. 1988, ch. 1597, § 1) prohibited offenses related to 6 | the solicitation of prostitution and was repealed as of January 1, 2018. (Stats. 2017, ch. 537, § 7} 8). 8 The Supreme Court has instructed federal courts to liberally construe the “inartful 9 | pleading[s]” of pro se litigants. See Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982). It is unclear 10 | whether Petition has a conviction for section 647f in addition to his conviction for forcible rape. 11 | Nonetheless, even liberally construed, the instant petition for resentencing or dismissal relates in 12 | no way to the claim raised before this Court in his federal Petition. Moreover, this Court lacks 13 || jurisdiction to grant him the requested relief under the state statute. 14 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 15 Petitioner’s Petition for Resentencing and Dismissal (Doc. No. 16) is DENIED. 16 M Dated: _ December 6, 2023 law ZA. foareh Zackte 18 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28