1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN MANUEL JUAREZ, Case No. 1:22-cv-01619-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS PETITION1 14 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, (Doc. No. 1) 15 Respondent. FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 16 17 18 19 20 Petitioner Juan Manuel Juarez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has pending a petition 21 for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1, “Petition”). This 22 matter is before the Court for preliminary review. See Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4; 28 23 U.S.C. § 2243. Under Rule 4, a district court must dismiss a habeas petition if it “plainly 24 appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 25 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). Courts have “an active 26 role in summarily disposing of facially defective habeas petitions” under Rule 4. Ross v. 27 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 28 (E.D. Cal. 2022). 1 Williams, 896 F.3d 958, 968 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). As more fully set forth herein, 2 based on the facts and governing law, the undersigned recommends that the Petition be dismissed 3 because it fails to state a federal habeas claim. 4 I. BACKGROUND 5 Petitioner initiated this case on December 16, 2022 by filing the instant petition. (Doc. 6 No. 1). Petitioner is serving a sentence of twenty-four years to life for convictions of “aiding and 7 abetting to murder” and attempted murder, and a conviction for great bodily injury on a 8 corrections officer. (Id. at 2). The Petition raises two grounds for relief: Petitioner’s Sixth 9 Amendment rights were violated because the Supreme Court of California’s summary denial of 10 his petition for writ of habeas corpus was not “adequate” and he “was not returned proper 11 documentation to know what [he is] complaining about.” (Id. at 3-4). In support, Petitioner 12 argues the state supreme court’s summary decision “lacks wording as to why [he] was denied or 13 [what is] being denied.” (Id. at 4). 14 II. APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 15 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary 16 review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it 17 plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the 18 Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 19 The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the Court may dismiss a petition for writ 20 of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to 21 dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. However, a petition for habeas corpus 22 should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief 23 can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). A 24 federal court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate a state prisoner’s challenge to his conviction and 25 sentence is limited to claims involving violation of the United States Constitution, federal laws, or 26 United States’ treaties. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(1), 2254(a). 27 The gravamen of Petitioner’s underlying claim is that the California Supreme Court’s 28 summary denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus violates his Sixth Amendment rights. 1 This claim is clearly not cognizable via a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Challenges to the 2 adequacy as opposed to the availability of a state post-conviction are not redressable through 3 federal habeas corpus proceedings. Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26 (9th Cir. 1989). In 4 Franzen, the petitioner alleged a due process violation stemming from the appellate court delay in 5 deciding his petition for post-conviction relief. The district court dismissed the § 2254 petition on 6 the grounds that petitioner’s attack on the state court process was not a challenge to his detention 7 and sentence. (Id.). In affirming, the Ninth Circuit agreed with every other circuit court 8 addressing this issue, except the First Circuit, and held errors in state post-conviction review “is 9 not addressable through habeas corpus proceedings.” (Id.); see also Silversky v. Frink, 500 F. 10 App’x 625, 626 (9th Cir. 2012) (“A federal habeas petition is not the proper vehicle for 11 addressing the adequacy of process provided . . . in state post-conviction proceedings.”). 12 While habeas relief may be available where a petitioner has been wrongfully denied his 13 right to appeal though the established state review process, Petitioner makes no such claim here. 14 Instead, Petitioner finds fault with the sufficiency of the process because the state supreme court 15 issued a summary denial of his state habeas petition. Notably, the Constitution does not mandate 16 a post-conviction process. See Lackawanna Cty. Dist. Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 402 (2001) 17 (“[E]ach State has created mechanisms for both direct appeal and state postconviction review, 18 even though there is no constitutional mandate that they do so.”); Bell-Bey v. Roper, 499 F.3d 19 752, 756 (8th Cir. 2007) (“Because the Constitution does not guarantee the existence of state 20 post-conviction proceedings, an infirmity in a state post-conviction proceeding does not raise a 21 constitutional issue cognizable in a federal habeas application.”) (Internal quotations and citations 22 omitted). 23 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends the Petition be dismissed for failure 24 to state a cognizable habeas claim because no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such 25 leave granted. 26 III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 27 State prisoners in a habeas corpus action under § 2254 do not have an automatic right to 28 appeal a final order. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 1 (2003). To appeal, a prisoner must obtain a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 2 see also R. Governing Section 2254 Cases 11 (requires a district court to issue or deny a 3 certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a petitioner); Ninth Circuit Rule 4 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997).
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 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN MANUEL JUAREZ, Case No. 1:22-cv-01619-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS PETITION1 14 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, (Doc. No. 1) 15 Respondent. FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 16 17 18 19 20 Petitioner Juan Manuel Juarez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has pending a petition 21 for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1, “Petition”). This 22 matter is before the Court for preliminary review. See Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4; 28 23 U.S.C. § 2243. Under Rule 4, a district court must dismiss a habeas petition if it “plainly 24 appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 25 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). Courts have “an active 26 role in summarily disposing of facially defective habeas petitions” under Rule 4. Ross v. 27 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 28 (E.D. Cal. 2022). 1 Williams, 896 F.3d 958, 968 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). As more fully set forth herein, 2 based on the facts and governing law, the undersigned recommends that the Petition be dismissed 3 because it fails to state a federal habeas claim. 4 I. BACKGROUND 5 Petitioner initiated this case on December 16, 2022 by filing the instant petition. (Doc. 6 No. 1). Petitioner is serving a sentence of twenty-four years to life for convictions of “aiding and 7 abetting to murder” and attempted murder, and a conviction for great bodily injury on a 8 corrections officer. (Id. at 2). The Petition raises two grounds for relief: Petitioner’s Sixth 9 Amendment rights were violated because the Supreme Court of California’s summary denial of 10 his petition for writ of habeas corpus was not “adequate” and he “was not returned proper 11 documentation to know what [he is] complaining about.” (Id. at 3-4). In support, Petitioner 12 argues the state supreme court’s summary decision “lacks wording as to why [he] was denied or 13 [what is] being denied.” (Id. at 4). 14 II. APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 15 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary 16 review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it 17 plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the 18 Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 19 The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the Court may dismiss a petition for writ 20 of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to 21 dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. However, a petition for habeas corpus 22 should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief 23 can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). A 24 federal court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate a state prisoner’s challenge to his conviction and 25 sentence is limited to claims involving violation of the United States Constitution, federal laws, or 26 United States’ treaties. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(1), 2254(a). 27 The gravamen of Petitioner’s underlying claim is that the California Supreme Court’s 28 summary denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus violates his Sixth Amendment rights. 1 This claim is clearly not cognizable via a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Challenges to the 2 adequacy as opposed to the availability of a state post-conviction are not redressable through 3 federal habeas corpus proceedings. Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26 (9th Cir. 1989). In 4 Franzen, the petitioner alleged a due process violation stemming from the appellate court delay in 5 deciding his petition for post-conviction relief. The district court dismissed the § 2254 petition on 6 the grounds that petitioner’s attack on the state court process was not a challenge to his detention 7 and sentence. (Id.). In affirming, the Ninth Circuit agreed with every other circuit court 8 addressing this issue, except the First Circuit, and held errors in state post-conviction review “is 9 not addressable through habeas corpus proceedings.” (Id.); see also Silversky v. Frink, 500 F. 10 App’x 625, 626 (9th Cir. 2012) (“A federal habeas petition is not the proper vehicle for 11 addressing the adequacy of process provided . . . in state post-conviction proceedings.”). 12 While habeas relief may be available where a petitioner has been wrongfully denied his 13 right to appeal though the established state review process, Petitioner makes no such claim here. 14 Instead, Petitioner finds fault with the sufficiency of the process because the state supreme court 15 issued a summary denial of his state habeas petition. Notably, the Constitution does not mandate 16 a post-conviction process. See Lackawanna Cty. Dist. Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 402 (2001) 17 (“[E]ach State has created mechanisms for both direct appeal and state postconviction review, 18 even though there is no constitutional mandate that they do so.”); Bell-Bey v. Roper, 499 F.3d 19 752, 756 (8th Cir. 2007) (“Because the Constitution does not guarantee the existence of state 20 post-conviction proceedings, an infirmity in a state post-conviction proceeding does not raise a 21 constitutional issue cognizable in a federal habeas application.”) (Internal quotations and citations 22 omitted). 23 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends the Petition be dismissed for failure 24 to state a cognizable habeas claim because no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such 25 leave granted. 26 III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 27 State prisoners in a habeas corpus action under § 2254 do not have an automatic right to 28 appeal a final order. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 1 (2003). To appeal, a prisoner must obtain a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 2 see also R. Governing Section 2254 Cases 11 (requires a district court to issue or deny a 3 certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a petitioner); Ninth Circuit Rule 4 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). Where, as here, the court 5 denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the merits of the underlying 6 constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability only “if jurists of reason 7 would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional 8 right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its 9 procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain procedural bar 10 is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist 11 could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the 12 petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id. Here, reasonable jurists would not find the 13 undersigned’s conclusion debatable or conclude that petitioner should proceed further. The 14 undersigned therefore recommends that a certificate of appealability not issue. 15 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 16 The clerk of court is directed to assign this case to a district judge for the purposes of 17 reviewing these findings and recommendations. 18 It is further RECOMMENDED: 19 1. The Petition (Doc. No. 1) be DISMISSED. 20 2. Petitioner be denied a certificate of appealability. 21 //// 22 //// 23 NOTICE TO PARTIES 24 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 26 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written 27 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 28 Findings and Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 1 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 2 | 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 “| Dated: _ February 8, 2023 Wile. Lh fareh Hack 5 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28