Scott Keith Ernst v. Louis Garnica

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 3, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-03594
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT KEITH ERNST, Case No. 2:25-cv-3594-JDP (P) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 LOUIS GARNICA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this action under section 2254. ECF No. 1. After 18 review of the petition, I find that it fails to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. I will dismiss 19 the petition with leave to amend. 20 The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 21 Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine 22 the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 23 petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); 24 Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 25 The petition is flawed and cannot proceed for two reasons. First, to the extent that 26 petitioner is challenging any aspect of his original conviction, which occurred in 2008, his claims 27 are long past the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty’s one-year statute of limitations 28 1 period. Thus, to the extent any claim relates to his original trial or conviction, it appears 2 untimely. Second, petitioner’s claims relating to resentencing under California Penal Code 3 § 1172.1 sound purely in state law and do not provide a basis for federal habeas relief. See 4 Cossey v. Morales, CV 26-00143-DSF (DFM), 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7660, *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 5 14, 2026) (“Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable on federal habeas review because it is premised 6 exclusively on an issue of state law—whether the trial court should exercise its discretion under 7 § 1172.1 to recall his sentence and resentence him.”). And petitioner cannot convert such claims 8 into federal ones merely by referencing due process. See Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 9 504, 507 (9th Cir. 1994). Neither does the Sixth Amendment give rise to any claim for 10 inadequate representation during resentencing proceedings. See Delci v. Arias, No. 2:24-cv- 11 07531-MRA-PD, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213157, *9 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2024) (collecting cases 12 and noting that “district courts within the Ninth Circuit routinely hold that ineffective-assistance 13 claims concerning resentencing-petition proceedings are not cognizable on federal habeas 14 review”). 15 I note that the petition is lengthy and refers to issues relevant both to the original 16 conviction and the resentencing proceedings. As such, it is difficult to tell exactly how many and 17 what type of claims are at issue. 18 I will dismiss the petition with leave to amend so that petitioner may explain why, if at all, 19 this action should proceed. If petitioner chooses to file an amended petition, he must do so on the 20 form provided—though he may, if necessary, append additional pages. A lengthy, disorganized 21 petition will not be looked upon favorably, however. The amended petition should be titled “First 22 Amended Petition.” I advise plaintiff to provide a straightforward chronology of the events 23 undergirding his claims and to plainly state the specifics of each claim he seeks to raise. 24 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 25 1. The petition, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 26 2. Within thirty days from service of this order, petitioner shall file either (1) an 27 amended petition or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 28 1 3. Failure to timely file either an amended petition or notice of voluntary dismissal 2 | may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be 3 | dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 4 4. The Clerk of Court shall send petitioner a habeas petition form with this order. If 5 | he files an amended complaint, he must use this form. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ March 3, 2026 q———_ 9 JEREMY D. PETERSON 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28