Kenneth Wilson v. Gigi Matteson

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 Case No. CV 20-7412 DOC (MRW) 13 KENNETH WILSON, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 14 Petitioner, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 v. 16 GIGI MATHESON, Warden, 17 Respondent. 18

19 The Court summarily dismisses Petitioner’s habeas action without 20 prejudice for failure to state a claim. 21 * * * 22 1. Petitioner is currently serving a life term in state prison based 23 on his 1996 conviction on assault, domestic violence, and weapons charges 24 and enhancements. 25 2. Petitioner’s current habeas petition appears to challenge the 26 denial of his request for resentencing under Proposition 36, a reform to the 27 28 1 California Three Strikes sentencing scheme. Petitioner broadly contends 2 that the denial of resentencing was “unjust.” (Docket # 1 at 5.) 3 3. Magistrate Judge Wilner screened Petitioner’s action. 4 Judge Wilner noted that the state appellate court decision1 that denied 5 Petitioner’s most recent resentencing challenge “referred exclusively to 6 California law, and did not discuss any federal constitutional issues.” 7 (Docket # 4.) The magistrate judge ordered Petitioner to explain why the 8 action should not be dismissed for failure to state a federal constitutional 9 claim. 10 4. Petitioner submitted a response to Judge Wilner’s order. 11 (Docket # 6.) The response provided little additional information regarding 12 Petitioner’s constitutional claims. 13 5. Nevertheless, Judge Wilner directed the California Attorney 14 General to respond to the petition. The Attorney General moved to dismiss 15 the action for failure to present a cognizable federal claim. (Docket # 10.) 16 Petitioner resubmitted his previous supplemental statement as his 17 opposition to the dismissal motion. (Docket # 14.) 18 * * * 19 6. For a state prisoner to obtain habeas relief, s/he must properly 20 allege that the decisions of the state court “(1) resulted in a decision that 21 was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly 22 established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the 23 United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an 24 unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented 25 in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Habeas corpus relief is 26 reserved for claims in which a prisoner contends that a federal 27 1 See People v. Wilson, 2019 WL 4942650 (Cal. App. 2019) (affirming 28 denial of resentencing under Proposition 36, Cal. Penal C. § 1170.126). 1 constitutional error affects “the validity of the prisoner’s continued 2 incarceration.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F. 3d 850, 856 (9th Cir. 2003). 3 7. A state prisoner must fairly present a federal constitutional 4 claim for habeas consideration. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). 5 Driveby references to the federal constitution or vague concepts like “a fair 6 trial” or “fair sentencing” are insufficient to fairly present and exhaust the 7 legal basis for a constitutional claim. Castillo v. McFadden, 399 F.3d 993, 8 999 (9th Cir. 2005); Fields v. Waddington, 401 F.3d 1018, 1021 (9th Cir. 9 2005). 10 8. A challenge to a state court’s interpretation or application of its 11 own sentencing laws is generally not subject to federal habeas review. 12 Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990); Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 13 512, 522 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[a]s the Supreme Court has stated time and 14 again, federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.”); 15 Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 469 (9th Cir. 1994) (“a state court’s 16 misapplication of its own sentencing laws does not justify federal habeas 17 relief.”) 18 9. That prohibition extends to state sentencing initiatives such as 19 Proposition 36. Ample authority establishes that “whether an inmate is 20 eligible for resentencing under Proposition 36 is a state-law question that 21 presents no cognizable federal claim on habeas review.” King v. Cueva, No. 22 CV 20-1776 RGK (JPR), 2020 WL 8410448 at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (collecting 23 cases); Bradley v. Sherman, No. CV 20-6294 JVS (SHK), 2020 WL 5804076 24 at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (“[W]hether the trial court properly exercised its 25 discretion in denying Petitioner’s request to resentence Petitioner under 26 Proposition 36 and 47 is a state law issue. Because this Court is bound by 27 28 1 | the appellate court’s determination that no error occurred, Petitioner fails 2 || to state a cognizable federal habeas claim.”). 3 KR * 4 10. Petitioner’s original petition, his supplemental statement, and 5 | the state appellate decision under review make clear that Petitioner seeks 6 | federal review of his failed attempt to obtain state court relief under 7 | Proposition 36. His submissions in this Court do not point to any U.S. 8 | Supreme Court decision clearly establishing a principle of federal 9 | constitutional law relevant to Petitioner’s claims of sentencing error. 10 11. As such, the current action does not present a federal 11 | constitutional question upon which this Court can properly grant habeas 12 | relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Lewis, 497 U.S. at 780; Christian, 41 F.3d 13 | at 469; King, 2020 WL 8410448 at *3; Bradley, 2020 WL 5804076 at *3. 14 | The habeas action must be dismissed. 15 Therefore, the action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. Fed. 16 | R. Civ. P. 41; L.R. 72-3.2. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 . Kaunit 0 Cait 20 | Dated: March 8, 2021 91 HON. DAVID O. CARTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 Presented by: 24 25 [ 26 HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER 27 | UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28