1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOUGLAS VARNELL JACKSON, III, Case No. 1:24-cv-00786-CDB (HC)
12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 13 v. HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 14 EDWARD BORLA, Warden, (Doc. 1) 15 Respondent. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 21 DAYS 16 Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge 17
18 19 Petitioner Douglas Varnell Jackson III (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and 20 in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 21 1). Because a preliminary screening of the petition reveals it fails to state a cognizable federal 22 claim and that amendment would not be able to cure the deficiency, the undersigned recommends 23 that the petition be dismissed. 24 Background 25 Petitioner is currently serving a term of 48 years plus life in prison with the possibility of 26 parole following his 2008 jury convictions for attempted murder of a peace officer, attempted 27 second degree robbery, felony evading with a firearm, second degree robbery, assault with a firearm, and felon in possession. (Doc. 1 at 1); see People v. Jackson, No. F057047, 2011 WL 1 5313833, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2011). On appeal, the Fifth Appellate District Court of 2 Appeal remanded for correction of an error in the abstract of judgment but otherwise affirmed the 3 judgment. Id. In his petition, Petitioner asserts the California Supreme Court denied his request 4 for review. (Doc. 1 at 2). Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition challenging his conviction in 5 this Court, and the petition was denied on June 11, 2015. See Jackson v. Valenzuela, No. 1:13- 6 cv-01296-LJO-MJS at Doc. 34. 7 On April 1, 2022, Petitioner filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code § 8 1172.6 in the state superior court. See People v. Jackson, No. F085191, 2023 WL 4038131, at *3 9 (Cal. Ct. App. June 16, 2023). The superior court denied the petition and the Fifth Appellate 10 District affirmed the denial on June 16, 2023. Id. at *3-5, 9. 11 Petitioner filed the instant federal petition on July 8, 2024, raising claims of (1) judicial 12 misconduct; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) withholding evidence; and (4) eligibility for 13 resentencing under Penal Code § 1170.95, now § 1172.6. (Doc. 1). 14 Preliminary Screening 15 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (“Habeas Rules”) requires the Court to 16 conduct a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. Pro se habeas petitions 17 are to be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). However, the 18 Court must dismiss a petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition … that the petitioner is not 19 entitled to relief.” Habeas Rule 4. Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all grounds 20 for relief available to the Petitioner; 2) state the facts supporting each ground; and 3) state the 21 relief requested. Notice pleading is not sufficient; rather, the petition must state facts that point to 22 a real possibility of a constitutional error. Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005) (“Habeas 23 Corpus Rule 2(c) is more demanding.”). Allegations in a petition that are vague, conclusory, or 24 palpably incredible are subject to summary dismissal. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 25 (9th Cir. 1990). A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend 26 unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave to be granted. 27 Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971) (per curiam). 1 Discussion 2 Based on the facts alleged in support of each of Petitioner’s grounds, the instant petition 3 challenges only the procedures and outcome of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal 4 Code § 1172.6, not his underlying 2008 conviction. (See Doc. 1 at 4-12). However, federal 5 habeas relief is only warranted when a state prisoner is “in custody in violation of the 6 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Thus, “federal habeas 7 corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.” Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S.1, 5 (2010) 8 (quoting Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991)). “Federal courts have routinely held that 9 challenges to denials of section 1170.95 resentencing petitions pertain solely to the state court’s 10 interpretation and application of state sentencing law and therefore are not cognizable on federal 11 habeas review.” Delci v. Arias, No. 2:24-cv-07531-MRA-PD, 2024 WL 4875244, at *3 (C.D. 12 Cal. Nov. 21, 2024) (citation modified) (collecting cases); see, e.g., Banks v. Sherman, No. 1:20- 13 cv-01225-DAD-EPG (HC), 2021 WL 1754383, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2021) (adopting 14 recommendation to dismiss petition because alleged errors in application of section 1170.95 are 15 not cognizable in federal habeas corpus). Because Petitioner asserts only challenges to state law, 16 his petition fails to present a cognizable federal claim. 17 While generally petitioners are afforded an opportunity to file an amended petition to 18 correct any deficiencies, Petitioner cannot correct this deficiency through amendment. When 19 challenging a denial of resentencing pursuant to Penal Code § 1172.6, “[a] federal habeas 20 petitioner may not transform a state-law issue into a federal one merely by labelling it a ‘due 21 process’ claim or making a general appeal to constitutional guarantees.” Galaz v. California, No. 22 2:24-cv-07517-DOC-KES, 2024 WL 4805430, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2024) (collecting cases, 23 including Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 163 (1996)), report & recommendation adopted, 24 2024 WL 4803369 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2024). Thus, any challenge to the denial of resentencing 25 is noncognizable on federal review. 26 Further, any attempt by Petitioner to amend the instant petition to bring claims 27 challenging his underlying conviction rather than the denial of resentencing would result in an 1 appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider [a second or 2 successive habeas] application.” Because, as indicated above, Petitioner has already been denied 3 federal habeas relief with respect to the relevant convictions, he would be required to obtain 4 authorization from the Ninth Circuit to pursue a second or successive petition. 5 Because the petition fails to present a cognizable federal claim and this defect cannot be 6 cured through amendment, dismissal of the petition is warranted. See Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 7 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (Habeas Rule 4 “permits summary dismissal of claims that are 8 clearly not cognizable”). 9 Conclusion and Recommendation 10 Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a district judge. 11 Additionally, for the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the 12 petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. 13 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 14 assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOUGLAS VARNELL JACKSON, III, Case No. 1:24-cv-00786-CDB (HC)
12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 13 v. HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 14 EDWARD BORLA, Warden, (Doc. 1) 15 Respondent. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 21 DAYS 16 Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge 17
18 19 Petitioner Douglas Varnell Jackson III (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and 20 in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 21 1). Because a preliminary screening of the petition reveals it fails to state a cognizable federal 22 claim and that amendment would not be able to cure the deficiency, the undersigned recommends 23 that the petition be dismissed. 24 Background 25 Petitioner is currently serving a term of 48 years plus life in prison with the possibility of 26 parole following his 2008 jury convictions for attempted murder of a peace officer, attempted 27 second degree robbery, felony evading with a firearm, second degree robbery, assault with a firearm, and felon in possession. (Doc. 1 at 1); see People v. Jackson, No. F057047, 2011 WL 1 5313833, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2011). On appeal, the Fifth Appellate District Court of 2 Appeal remanded for correction of an error in the abstract of judgment but otherwise affirmed the 3 judgment. Id. In his petition, Petitioner asserts the California Supreme Court denied his request 4 for review. (Doc. 1 at 2). Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition challenging his conviction in 5 this Court, and the petition was denied on June 11, 2015. See Jackson v. Valenzuela, No. 1:13- 6 cv-01296-LJO-MJS at Doc. 34. 7 On April 1, 2022, Petitioner filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code § 8 1172.6 in the state superior court. See People v. Jackson, No. F085191, 2023 WL 4038131, at *3 9 (Cal. Ct. App. June 16, 2023). The superior court denied the petition and the Fifth Appellate 10 District affirmed the denial on June 16, 2023. Id. at *3-5, 9. 11 Petitioner filed the instant federal petition on July 8, 2024, raising claims of (1) judicial 12 misconduct; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) withholding evidence; and (4) eligibility for 13 resentencing under Penal Code § 1170.95, now § 1172.6. (Doc. 1). 14 Preliminary Screening 15 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (“Habeas Rules”) requires the Court to 16 conduct a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. Pro se habeas petitions 17 are to be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). However, the 18 Court must dismiss a petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition … that the petitioner is not 19 entitled to relief.” Habeas Rule 4. Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all grounds 20 for relief available to the Petitioner; 2) state the facts supporting each ground; and 3) state the 21 relief requested. Notice pleading is not sufficient; rather, the petition must state facts that point to 22 a real possibility of a constitutional error. Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005) (“Habeas 23 Corpus Rule 2(c) is more demanding.”). Allegations in a petition that are vague, conclusory, or 24 palpably incredible are subject to summary dismissal. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 25 (9th Cir. 1990). A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend 26 unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave to be granted. 27 Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971) (per curiam). 1 Discussion 2 Based on the facts alleged in support of each of Petitioner’s grounds, the instant petition 3 challenges only the procedures and outcome of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal 4 Code § 1172.6, not his underlying 2008 conviction. (See Doc. 1 at 4-12). However, federal 5 habeas relief is only warranted when a state prisoner is “in custody in violation of the 6 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Thus, “federal habeas 7 corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.” Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S.1, 5 (2010) 8 (quoting Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991)). “Federal courts have routinely held that 9 challenges to denials of section 1170.95 resentencing petitions pertain solely to the state court’s 10 interpretation and application of state sentencing law and therefore are not cognizable on federal 11 habeas review.” Delci v. Arias, No. 2:24-cv-07531-MRA-PD, 2024 WL 4875244, at *3 (C.D. 12 Cal. Nov. 21, 2024) (citation modified) (collecting cases); see, e.g., Banks v. Sherman, No. 1:20- 13 cv-01225-DAD-EPG (HC), 2021 WL 1754383, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2021) (adopting 14 recommendation to dismiss petition because alleged errors in application of section 1170.95 are 15 not cognizable in federal habeas corpus). Because Petitioner asserts only challenges to state law, 16 his petition fails to present a cognizable federal claim. 17 While generally petitioners are afforded an opportunity to file an amended petition to 18 correct any deficiencies, Petitioner cannot correct this deficiency through amendment. When 19 challenging a denial of resentencing pursuant to Penal Code § 1172.6, “[a] federal habeas 20 petitioner may not transform a state-law issue into a federal one merely by labelling it a ‘due 21 process’ claim or making a general appeal to constitutional guarantees.” Galaz v. California, No. 22 2:24-cv-07517-DOC-KES, 2024 WL 4805430, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2024) (collecting cases, 23 including Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 163 (1996)), report & recommendation adopted, 24 2024 WL 4803369 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2024). Thus, any challenge to the denial of resentencing 25 is noncognizable on federal review. 26 Further, any attempt by Petitioner to amend the instant petition to bring claims 27 challenging his underlying conviction rather than the denial of resentencing would result in an 1 appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider [a second or 2 successive habeas] application.” Because, as indicated above, Petitioner has already been denied 3 federal habeas relief with respect to the relevant convictions, he would be required to obtain 4 authorization from the Ninth Circuit to pursue a second or successive petition. 5 Because the petition fails to present a cognizable federal claim and this defect cannot be 6 cured through amendment, dismissal of the petition is warranted. See Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 7 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (Habeas Rule 4 “permits summary dismissal of claims that are 8 clearly not cognizable”). 9 Conclusion and Recommendation 10 Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a district judge. 11 Additionally, for the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the 12 petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. 13 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 14 assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of 15 Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 21 days of 16 service, any party may file written objections to these findings and recommendations with the 17 Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 18 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without 19 leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the 20 Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the 21 exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise 22 reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limitation may be 23 disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing the Findings and Recommendations under 28 24 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 | appeal the district judge’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) 2 | (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 | IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘ Dated: _ August 6, 2025 | Ww v KD 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28