(HC) Sharp v. Borla

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 14, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01408
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY A. SHARP, Case No. 1:24-cv-01408-JLT-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 13 v. HABEAS CORPUS 14 EDWARD BORLA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Anthony A. Sharp is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ 18 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. As the instant petition fails to state a cognizable 19 federal habeas claim, the undersigned recommends dismissal of the petition. 20 I. 21 BACKGROUND 22 In 2016, Petitioner was sentenced by the Fresno County Superior Court to an 23 imprisonment term of twenty-five years. (ECF No. 1 at 1.1) On November 14, 2024, Petitioner 24 filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging the state courts’ denial of 25 resentencing. (Id. at 5.) Petitioner asserts that his sentence is unauthorized due to the passage of 26 California Senate Bill 567 and Assembly Bill 518. (Id. at 12.) 27 /// 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 4 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 5 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 6 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 7 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 8 Here, Petitioner challenges the state courts’ denial of resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill 9 567 and Assembly Bill 518. (ECF No. 1 at 12.) By statute, federal courts “shall entertain an 10 application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment 11 of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 12 treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Whether Petitioner is entitled to relief 13 pursuant to Senate Bill 567 and Assembly Bill 518 is an issue of state law. “[I]t is not the 14 province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law 15 questions.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991). “We accept a state court’s 16 interpretation of state law, and alleged errors in the application of state law are not cognizable in 17 federal habeas corpus.” Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation 18 omitted)). Accordingly, Petitioner fails to state a cognizable clam for federal habeas corpus 19 relief. 20 III. 21 RECOMMENDATION 22 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for 23 writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED. 24 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 25 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 26 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 27 THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file 1 | serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 2 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned United States District Court Judge will 3 | then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are 4 | advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 5 | District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 6 | v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 10 11] Dated: _ January 14, 2025 [sf ey — 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28