Robert Aikins v. A. Blythe

Opinion

CIVIL MINUTE S – GENERAL

Case No. 2:26-cv-04432-CV-SK Date: May 7, 2026 Title Robert Aikins v. A. Blythe

Present: The Honorable: Steve Kim, United States Magistrate Judge

Connie Chung n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s): Defendant(s)/Respondent(s): None present None present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner is a California state prisoner seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 following his 2024 convictions for voluntary manslaughter and assault with a semiautomatic firearm. (ECF 1 at 2). But the petition challenges only the imposition of certain sentencing enhancements under California state law and the California state court’s decisions during a resentencing hearing. (ECF 1 at 5). In other words, petitioner has not alleged that he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); see Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991). Thus, because “federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law,” Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990), it plainly appears on the face of the petition that petitioner is entitled to no federal habeas relief. See, e.g., Souch v. Schaivo, 289 F.3d 616, 622–23 (9th Cir. 2002) (challenge to trial court’s exercise of discretion under state sentencing law fails to state federal habeas claim). For this reason, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before June 4, 2026 why the Court should not dismiss the petition for failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. Petitioner may discharge this order by signing and returning the attached Form CV-09y, voluntarily dismissing the petition without prejudice. Failure to return that form or otherwise respond to this order on time may lead to involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute and obey court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 41-1. IT IS SO ORDERED.