1 2
6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 MAURICIO MORALES, ) No. 2:26-cv-01078-FMO-JDE ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ) ) THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE 14 MARIN GAMBOA, Warden, ) ) DISMISSED ) 15 Respondent. ) ) 16
17 I. 18 INTRODUCTION 19 On January 28, 2026, the Court received from Mauricio Morales 20 (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, a Petition for Writ of Habeas 21 Corpus by a Person in State Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Dkt. 1, 22 “Petition” or “Pet.”), together with a supporting memorandum of points and 23 authorities (Dkt. 5, “Pet. Mem.”). Petitioner, who was convicted of attempted 24 murder with enhancements in 2003, is serving a state sentence of 32 years to 25 life. Pet. at 2; Pet. Mem., Exhs. 1, 4. Petitioner previously challenged his 26 underlying state court conviction in a federal habeas petition in 2009, which 27 was dismissed with prejudice as untimely on April 25, 2010. See Morales v. 28 Herndon, Case No. 2:09-cv-02406-SJO-CW (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. 1, 15. In the 1 instant Petition, Petitioner challenges a 2024 resentencing hearing, arguing that 2 the trial court denied him relief under Cal. Penal Code §§ 1172.7, 1172.75, 3 1172.1, and 1172.6 by failing to conduct “a full resentencing” in violation of 4 his Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights. Pet. at 5- 5 6; Pet. Mem. at 1-2, 5-9. He further maintains that his appointed counsel 6 rendered ineffective assistance by doing “little to nothing, to ensure that [he] 7 received the benefits of the New Laws that affected his Constitutional 8 Rights[.]” Pet. at 6; Pet. Mem. at 3. 9 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 10 States District Courts (“Habeas Rules”), the Court has reviewed the Petition 11 and orders Petitioner to respond as set forth further below. 12 II. 13 DISCUSSION 14 Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Habeas Rules, a district court “must promptly 15 examine” the petition and, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any 16 attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief,” the “judge must 17 dismiss the petition.” See also Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005). Here, 18 it appears Petitioner has not stated any cognizable claims, rendering the 19 Petition subject to dismissal. 20 A district court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by 21 a person in state custody only on the ground that he is in custody “in violation 22 of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 23 § 2254(a); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991) (“In conducting habeas 24 review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the 25 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”). “[I]t is not the province 26 of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law 27 questions.” Waddington v. Sarausad, 555 U.S. 179, 192 n.5 (2009) (quoting 28 McGuire, 502 U.S. at 67-68). Matters relating to state sentencing are governed 1 by state law and generally are not cognizable on federal habeas review. See 2 Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990) (“federal habeas corpus relief does 3 not lie for errors of state law”); see also Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 4 (2011) (per curiam); Moore v. Chrones, 687 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1040 (C.D. Cal. 5 2010) (“A challenge to a state court’s application of state sentencing laws does 6 not create a federal question cognizable in federal habeas review.”). To state a 7 cognizable federal habeas claim based on a claimed state sentencing error, the 8 petitioner must show that the error was “so arbitrary or capricious as to 9 constitute an independent due process or Eighth Amendment violation.” 10 Richmond v. Lewis, 506 U.S. 40, 50 (1992) (quoting Lewis, 497 U.S. at 780). 11 However, a habeas petitioner may not “transform a state-law issue into a 12 federal one” merely by asserting a violation of a federal constitutional right. 13 See Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1997) (as modified). 14 Alleged errors in the application of state law are not cognizable on federal 15 habeas review. Id. 16 Here, Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief on the grounds that the trial 17 court erred in resentencing him and his appointed attorney rendered ineffective 18 assistance by failing “to ensure that [P]etitioner received the benefits of the 19 New Laws[.]” See Pet. at 5-6. Federal district courts, however, have repeatedly 20 held that challenges to resentencing proceedings pertain solely to the state 21 court’s interpretation and application of state sentencing law and therefore, are 22 not cognizable on federal habeas review. See, e.g., Polk v. Parker, 2025 WL 23 1592675, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2025); Crow v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs. & 24 Rehab., 2025 WL 1370230, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. May 12, 2025), adopted by 2025 25 WL 1727119 (E.D. Cal. June 20, 2025); Dean v. St. Andre, 2024 WL 4733510, 26 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2024); Issac v. Atchley, 2023 WL 2169104, at *2-3 27 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2023), accepted by 2023 WL 2167373 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 28 2023); Walker v. Cal. Supreme Ct., 2022 WL 11337927, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1 13, 2022), accepted by 2022 WL 11269388 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2022); see also 2 Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2006) (per curiam) (“[A] state court’s 3 interpretation of state law . . . binds a federal court sitting in habeas corpus.”). 4 That Petitioner claims the resentencing hearing violated his federal 5 constitutional rights does not render his claims cognizable on federal habeas 6 review. See Langford, 110 F.3d at 1389; Gomez v. Godwin, 2021 WL 7 1257553, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2021) (claims that denial of resentencing 8 petition violated due process and equal protection do not transform state law 9 issue into federal one), accepted by 2021 WL 871984 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2021); 10 Young v. Cueva, 2021 WL 371752, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2021) (finding 11 petitioner’s conclusory characterizations of the state courts’ alleged errors as 12 violations of due process and/or equal protection did not transform non- 13 cognizable state law issues into cognizable federal ones), accepted by 2021 WL 14 784954 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2021). Petitioner has failed to cite any evidence in 15 the record or elsewhere to demonstrate the trial court’s allegedly erroneous 16 sentencing decision was “so arbitrary or capricious as to constitute an 17 independent due process or Eighth Amendment” violation. See Richmond, 18 506 U.S. at 50 (citation omitted). 19 In addition, Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of claim is not cognizable 20 because there is no federal constitutional right to post-conviction counsel for 21 resentencing proceedings. See Polk, 2025 WL 1592675, at *2; Boone v. Vang, 22 2025 WL 2933609, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2025), accepted by 2025 WL 23 2926757 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2025). The federal constitution’s right to counsel 24 applies to trial and the first appeal as of right, but no further. See Pennsylvania 25 v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2
6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 MAURICIO MORALES, ) No. 2:26-cv-01078-FMO-JDE ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ) ) THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE 14 MARIN GAMBOA, Warden, ) ) DISMISSED ) 15 Respondent. ) ) 16
17 I. 18 INTRODUCTION 19 On January 28, 2026, the Court received from Mauricio Morales 20 (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, a Petition for Writ of Habeas 21 Corpus by a Person in State Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Dkt. 1, 22 “Petition” or “Pet.”), together with a supporting memorandum of points and 23 authorities (Dkt. 5, “Pet. Mem.”). Petitioner, who was convicted of attempted 24 murder with enhancements in 2003, is serving a state sentence of 32 years to 25 life. Pet. at 2; Pet. Mem., Exhs. 1, 4. Petitioner previously challenged his 26 underlying state court conviction in a federal habeas petition in 2009, which 27 was dismissed with prejudice as untimely on April 25, 2010. See Morales v. 28 Herndon, Case No. 2:09-cv-02406-SJO-CW (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. 1, 15. In the 1 instant Petition, Petitioner challenges a 2024 resentencing hearing, arguing that 2 the trial court denied him relief under Cal. Penal Code §§ 1172.7, 1172.75, 3 1172.1, and 1172.6 by failing to conduct “a full resentencing” in violation of 4 his Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights. Pet. at 5- 5 6; Pet. Mem. at 1-2, 5-9. He further maintains that his appointed counsel 6 rendered ineffective assistance by doing “little to nothing, to ensure that [he] 7 received the benefits of the New Laws that affected his Constitutional 8 Rights[.]” Pet. at 6; Pet. Mem. at 3. 9 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 10 States District Courts (“Habeas Rules”), the Court has reviewed the Petition 11 and orders Petitioner to respond as set forth further below. 12 II. 13 DISCUSSION 14 Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Habeas Rules, a district court “must promptly 15 examine” the petition and, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any 16 attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief,” the “judge must 17 dismiss the petition.” See also Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005). Here, 18 it appears Petitioner has not stated any cognizable claims, rendering the 19 Petition subject to dismissal. 20 A district court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by 21 a person in state custody only on the ground that he is in custody “in violation 22 of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 23 § 2254(a); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991) (“In conducting habeas 24 review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the 25 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”). “[I]t is not the province 26 of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law 27 questions.” Waddington v. Sarausad, 555 U.S. 179, 192 n.5 (2009) (quoting 28 McGuire, 502 U.S. at 67-68). Matters relating to state sentencing are governed 1 by state law and generally are not cognizable on federal habeas review. See 2 Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990) (“federal habeas corpus relief does 3 not lie for errors of state law”); see also Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 4 (2011) (per curiam); Moore v. Chrones, 687 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1040 (C.D. Cal. 5 2010) (“A challenge to a state court’s application of state sentencing laws does 6 not create a federal question cognizable in federal habeas review.”). To state a 7 cognizable federal habeas claim based on a claimed state sentencing error, the 8 petitioner must show that the error was “so arbitrary or capricious as to 9 constitute an independent due process or Eighth Amendment violation.” 10 Richmond v. Lewis, 506 U.S. 40, 50 (1992) (quoting Lewis, 497 U.S. at 780). 11 However, a habeas petitioner may not “transform a state-law issue into a 12 federal one” merely by asserting a violation of a federal constitutional right. 13 See Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1997) (as modified). 14 Alleged errors in the application of state law are not cognizable on federal 15 habeas review. Id. 16 Here, Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief on the grounds that the trial 17 court erred in resentencing him and his appointed attorney rendered ineffective 18 assistance by failing “to ensure that [P]etitioner received the benefits of the 19 New Laws[.]” See Pet. at 5-6. Federal district courts, however, have repeatedly 20 held that challenges to resentencing proceedings pertain solely to the state 21 court’s interpretation and application of state sentencing law and therefore, are 22 not cognizable on federal habeas review. See, e.g., Polk v. Parker, 2025 WL 23 1592675, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2025); Crow v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs. & 24 Rehab., 2025 WL 1370230, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. May 12, 2025), adopted by 2025 25 WL 1727119 (E.D. Cal. June 20, 2025); Dean v. St. Andre, 2024 WL 4733510, 26 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2024); Issac v. Atchley, 2023 WL 2169104, at *2-3 27 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2023), accepted by 2023 WL 2167373 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 28 2023); Walker v. Cal. Supreme Ct., 2022 WL 11337927, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1 13, 2022), accepted by 2022 WL 11269388 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2022); see also 2 Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2006) (per curiam) (“[A] state court’s 3 interpretation of state law . . . binds a federal court sitting in habeas corpus.”). 4 That Petitioner claims the resentencing hearing violated his federal 5 constitutional rights does not render his claims cognizable on federal habeas 6 review. See Langford, 110 F.3d at 1389; Gomez v. Godwin, 2021 WL 7 1257553, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2021) (claims that denial of resentencing 8 petition violated due process and equal protection do not transform state law 9 issue into federal one), accepted by 2021 WL 871984 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2021); 10 Young v. Cueva, 2021 WL 371752, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2021) (finding 11 petitioner’s conclusory characterizations of the state courts’ alleged errors as 12 violations of due process and/or equal protection did not transform non- 13 cognizable state law issues into cognizable federal ones), accepted by 2021 WL 14 784954 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2021). Petitioner has failed to cite any evidence in 15 the record or elsewhere to demonstrate the trial court’s allegedly erroneous 16 sentencing decision was “so arbitrary or capricious as to constitute an 17 independent due process or Eighth Amendment” violation. See Richmond, 18 506 U.S. at 50 (citation omitted). 19 In addition, Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of claim is not cognizable 20 because there is no federal constitutional right to post-conviction counsel for 21 resentencing proceedings. See Polk, 2025 WL 1592675, at *2; Boone v. Vang, 22 2025 WL 2933609, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2025), accepted by 2025 WL 23 2926757 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2025). The federal constitution’s right to counsel 24 applies to trial and the first appeal as of right, but no further. See Pennsylvania 25 v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987). As no federal constitutional right to 26 counsel exists, there is no claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on 27 federal law. See Polk, 2025 WL 1592675, at *2; Boone, 2025 WL 2933609, at 28 1 Gont v. Phillips, 2025 WL 2471776, at *5, 9-10 (C.D. Cal. July 16, 2025), 2 accepted by 2025 WL 2469179 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2025). 3 As such, it appears the Complaint fails to state a cognizable claim. 4 Ii. 5 ORDER 6 For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is subject to dismissal. Petitioner 7 ||is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing, by no later than thirty (30) days 8 || from the date of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed under 9 || Habeas Rule 4 for the reasons stated above. 10 Alternatively, instead of filing a response to the instant Order, Petitioner 11 ||may request a voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of 12 || Civil Procedure 41(a). The Clerk is directed to provide a Notice of Dismissal 13 || form. However, the Court warns that any dismissed claims may be subject to 14 statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 15 Petitioner is cautioned that a failure to respond timely in compliance 16 || with this Order could result in this action being dismissed for the foregoing 17 ||reasons, for failure to prosecute, and for failure to comply with a Court 18 || order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 19 20 || Dated: February 13, 2026 je de 22 HN D. EARLY 73 United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28