(HC) Zinman v. Macomber

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 11, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-02404
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUSTIN MARCUS ZINMAN, Case No. 2:23-cv-02404-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. SCREENING THE PETITION AND OFFERING LEAVE TO AMEND, AND 14 JEFF MACOMBER, DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SUBMIT MATERIALS 15 Respondent. ECF Nos. 1 & 10 16 17 18 19 20 21 Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this action under section 2254 and alleges that his 22 conviction is invalid because the state lacked jurisdiction over him because he is a “public entity” 23 that is incorporated in Idaho. ECF No. 1 at 2. I have reviewed the petition and have determined 24 that it fails to state a viable federal habeas claim. I will give petitioner one opportunity to amend 25 before recommending this action be dismissed. I will also defer ruling on his motion for 26 summary judgment, ECF No. 9, until he files his amended petition and deny his motion to submit 27 materials. 28 1 The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2 Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine 3 the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 4 petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); 5 Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 6 As stated above, petitioner alleges that the state court of conviction lacked jurisdiction 7 over him. ECF No. 1 at 2. This argument does not give rise to a viable federal habeas claim, 8 however. Federal courts have held that, whether a state court has jurisdiction over a person is an 9 issue of state law. See Wills v. Egeler, 532 F.2d 1058, 1059 (6th Cir. 1976) (“Determination of 10 whether a state court is vested with jurisdiction under state law is a function of the state courts, 11 not the federal judiciary.”); see also Rhode v. Olk-Long, 84 F.3d 284, 287 (8th Cir. 1996) 12 (“Because a determination of whether a state court is vested with jurisdiction under state law is a 13 function of the state courts, not the federal judiciary, the decision of the court of appeals 14 conclusively establishes that the trial court had jurisdiction over Rhode.”) (internal quotation 15 marks and citations omitted). Plaintiff may address this deficiency in his amended complaint and 16 explain why, if at all, his petition should proceed past screening. 17 It is hereby ORDERED that: 18 1. Petitioner may file an amended petition within thirty days of this order’s entry. If he 19 fails to do so, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 20 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a section 2254 habeas form with this 21 order. 22 3. Petitioner’s motion to submit material evidence, ECF No. 10, is denied without 23 prejudice. He may submit evidence when and if it becomes necessary to weigh it after he submits 24 a petition that survives screening. 25 26 27 28 1 | 1718 SO ORDERED. 3 ( — Dated: __March 11,2024 Jess Vote 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON ; UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 29 23 24 25 26 27 28