Pedro Medina Castillon v. The People of the State of California

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PEDRO MEDINA CASTILLON, Case No. 21-cv-00973-EMC

8 Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 9 v. FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND

10 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 11 Respondent. 12 13 14 I. BACKGROUND 15 Pedro Medina Castillon, an inmate currently housed at the Centinela State Prison, filed this 16 pro se action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 17 The Court reviewed Mr. Castillon’s petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of 18 the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, and dismissed the petition in part. See Docket No. 13. 19 Specifically, the Court noted that of Mr. Castillon’s ten claims, Claims 1-3, 7, 9, and 10 were 20 cognizable, but Claims 4-6 and 8 could not proceed because they identified violations only of 21 California law. See id. at 3. The Court allowed Mr. Castillon to file an amended petition which 22 would identify federal rights supporting Claims 4-6 and 8. See id. at 3-4. 23 Mr. Castillon filed an amended petition, see Docket No. 16 (“Amended Petition”), which is 24 now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 25 Section 2254 Cases. 26 For the reasons below, the amended petition is dismissed with further leave to amend. 27 II. DISCUSSION 1 Specifically, the only authority cited for Claim 4 is a California appellate case. See Am. Pet. at 2.1 2 For Claims 5 and 6, Mr. Castillon cites Ninth Circuit opinions without explanation, and then goes 3 on to discuss a California appellate decision at length. See id. at 4, 6. For Claim 8, Mr. Castillon 4 cites Ninth Circuit opinions, but does not discuss any federal right. See id. at 9. For each claim, 5 Mr. Castillon’s amended petition fails to identify a federal constitutional right which was violated. 6 A person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court can obtain a federal writ of 7 habeas corpus only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 8 treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). In other words, “it is only noncompliance with 9 federal law that renders a State’s criminal judgment susceptible to collateral attack in the federal 10 courts.” Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1, 5 (2010). The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that 11 the federal habeas writ is generally unavailable for violations of state law or for alleged error in 12 the interpretation or application of state law. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011); 13 Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991); Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 119 (1982); Peltier 14 v. Wright, 15 F.3d 860, 861-62 (9th Cir. 1994). It is unavailable unless “the Constitution or other 15 federal law specifically protects against the alleged unfairness or guarantees the procedural right in 16 state court.” Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added), cert. 17 denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 18 For Mr. Castillon, this means that it is not enough to cite a Ninth Circuit case without 19 identifying any federal right that was violated, or to cite a California case. Instead, Mr. Castillon 20 should identify a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution that was violated by the trial 21 court’s actions. Specifically, Mr. Castillon must identify which federal constitutional right was 22 violated when the trial court excluded evidence (Claims 4-6), and which federal constitutional 23 right was violated by the trial court’s jury instruction (Claim 8). 24 The Court will allow Mr. Castillon one last opportunity to identify a federal constitutional 25 right underlying Claims 4-6 and 8. If Mr. Castillon cannot do so, the case will go forward with 26 only the first, second, third, seventh, ninth, and tenth claims, as the Court previously determined 27 1 that those claims are cognizable. 2 III. CONCLUSION 3 For the foregoing reasons, the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED 4 WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Petitioner must file a second amended petition curing the 5 deficiencies identified in this order no later than June 3, 2022. The second amended petition 6 should have the case caption and case number on the first page and should be clearly marked 7 “Second Amended Petition.” 8 The second amended petition must be a complete statement of Petitioner’s claims. See 9 Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (“For claims dismissed 10 with prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not require that they be repled in a subsequent 11 amended complaint to preserve them for appeal. But for any claims voluntarily dismissed, we will 12 consider those claims to be waived if not repled.”) 13 If Petitioner does not file a second amended petition by the deadline, the case will go 14 forward with only the first, second, third, seventh, ninth, and tenth claims, as the Court previously 15 has determined that those claims are cognizable. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: April 28, 2022 20 21 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27