James L. Brisker, IV v. Patwln Horn, Warden

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 16, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-11111
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 JAMES L. BRISKER, IV, AW6554, Case No. 25-cv-11111-CRB (PR)

7 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 8 v. (ECF No. 6) 9 PATWLN HORN, Warden,1 10 Respondent.

11 Petitioner, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) in 12 Delano, California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 13 challenging a sentence from San Mateo County Superior Court. Petitioner also seeks leave to 14 proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 15 BACKGROUND 16 On May 26, 2023, petitioner was sentenced to a total of 27 years and four months in prison 17 after a jury convicted him of five felony offenses related to his robbery of three elderly victims at 18 gunpoint. Petitioner appealed arguing that the superior court committed sentencing errors. 19 On October 9, 2024, the California Court of Appeal found no sentencing error and 20 affirmed the judgment of the superior court, and on December 31, 2024, the California Supreme 21 Court denied review.2 22 On December 15, 2025, petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus 23 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 24 1 The court substitutes in as the proper respondent in this case Patwln Horn, warden of 25 Kern Valley State Prison, where petitioner currently is incarcerated.

26 2 Petitioner checked a box in his form petition indicating that he did not seek further review in a higher court after the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the superior 27 court on October 9, 2024, but the court takes judicial notice that petitioner did seek review in the 1 DISCUSSION 2 A. Standard of Review 3 This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 4 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 5 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). It 6 shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not 7 entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. The petition accordingly may be dismissed if it plainly appears from 8 the face of the petition and any exhibits attached to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. 9 Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 10 B. Claims 11 Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief under § 2254 on the basis of two claims of 12 sentencing error: (1) the superior court failed to understand and properly apply California Penal 13 Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(6), in deciding not to impose the low term, and (2) the superior 14 court failed to give appropriate weight to mitigating evidence under California Penal Code section 15 1385, subdivision (c)(2), in declining to strike the firearm enhancements and failing to adequately 16 explain its reasoning for doing so. The claims are without merit on federal habeas. 17 It is well established that federal habeas courts must defer to state courts’ interpretation of 18 state sentencing laws. See Bueno v. Hallahan, 988 F.2d 86, 88 (9th Cir. 1993). “Absent a 19 showing of fundamental unfairness, a state court’s misapplication of its own sentencing laws does 20 not justify federal habeas relief.” Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 469 (9th Cir. 1994). Here, the 21 court takes judicial notice that the California Court of Appeal rejected petitioner’s sentencing error 22 claims on the grounds that the superior court did not misunderstand or misapply California 23 sentencing laws and was within its discretion in sentencing petitioner as it did. See People v. 24 Brisker, No. A167974, slip op. at 6-12 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2024). This court is bound by the 25 California Court of Appeal’s interpretation of California sentencing laws and must defer to its 26 determination that the superior court did not misunderstand or misapply California sentencing 27 ] California sentencing laws, there is no indication of fundamental unfairness stemming therefrom 2 || sufficient to justify federal habeas relief. See Christian, 41 F.3d at 469. Petitioner’s sentencing 3 error claims simply do not amount to a constitutional claim justifying federal habeas relief. 4 || Accord Miller v. Vasquez, 868 F.2d 1116, 1118-19 (9th Cir. 1989) (whether assault with deadly 5 || weapon qualifies as “serious felony” under state sentence enhancement provisions is question of 6 || state sentencing law and does not state constitutional claim); Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 7 {| 504, 507 (9th Cir. 1994) (failure to abide by state sentencing requirement that trial court state 8 || reasons for sentencing consecutively does not rise to level of federal habeas due process claim). 9 CONCLUSION 10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. And 11 pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a certificate of appealability «= 12 || (COA) under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) is DENIED because it cannot be said that “reasonable jurists E 13 would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack 14 || ¥-McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 5 15 But based solely on petitioner’s affidavit of poverty, his application for leave to proceed 16 IFP (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 Dated: April 16, 2026 CHARLES R. BREYER 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28