Stephen Stratton v. The State of Nevada, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 4, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00543
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * * Case No. 3:25-cv-00543-MMD-CSD 6 STEPHEN STRATTON, ORDER 7 Petitioner, v. 8 THE STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 9 Respondents. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 This habeas matter is before the Court for initial review of Petitioner Stephen 13 Stratton’s pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1-2 (“Petition”)) under 28 14 U.S.C. § 2254 under the rules governing § 2254 cases.1 Also before the Court is Stratton’s 15 application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF Nos. 4, 6.) The Court concludes 16 that the Petition fails to state a cognizable federal habeas claim, summarily dismisses the 17 Petition without prejudice, and grants the IFP application. 18 II. DISCUSSION 19 Under Habeas Rule 4, the assigned judge must examine the habeas petition and 20 order a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See 21 Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). The rule allows courts to screen 22 and dismiss petitions that are patently frivolous, vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, 23 false, or plagued by procedural defects. See Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1128 24 (9th Cir. 1998). 25 Stratton’s Petition fails to allege a cognizable federal habeas claim. The 26 1All references to a “Habeas Rule” or the “Habeas Rules” in this order identify the 27 rules governing § 2254 cases in the United States District Courts. Petitioner filed the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; however, the Court will apply the Rules in this action as 28 1 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act “places limitations on a federal court’s 2 power to grant a state prisoner’s federal habeas petition.” Hurles v. Ryan, 752 F.3d 768, 3 777 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011)). A state prisoner 4 is entitled to federal habeas relief only if he is being held in custody in violation of the 5 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). “Thus, a 6 habeas corpus petition must allege a deprivation of one or more federal rights to present 7 a cognizable federal habeas corpus claim.” Burkey v. Deeds, 824 F. Supp. 190, 192 (D. 8 Nev. 1993). 9 Generally, matters relating to state sentencing are not cognizable on federal 10 habeas review. See Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 469 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that 11 state court’s misapplication of state sentencing laws does not violate due process thereby 12 justifying federal habeas relief unless petitioner can show “fundamental unfairness”); 13 Miller v. Vasquez, 868 F.2d 1116, 1118-19 (9th Cir. 1989) (question of whether a prior 14 conviction qualifies for sentence enhancement under California law is not a cognizable 15 federal habeas claim). 16 Federal habeas relief is unavailable “for errors of state law.” Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 17 U.S. 764, 780 (1990). A state’s interpretation of its own laws or rules provides no basis 18 for federal habeas relief because no federal question arises. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 19 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (federal courts may not reexamine state court decisions on state 20 law issues). A petitioner “may not transform a state-law issue into a federal one merely 21 by asserting a violation of due process.” Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 22 1997). 23 Stratton challenges the statutory, good time, and work time credits applied by 24 Senate Bill 413. (ECF No. 1-2 at 3.) He appears to assert that he elects to be subjected 25 to the revised calculation method and requests a recalculation or modification of his 26 sentence. (Id. at 4-5.) Stratton’s claims present no federal question because they plainly 27 involve the application or interpretation of state law regarding prison disciplinary 28 proceedings, parole hearings, and computation of statutory good time credits. See 1 || Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220-22 (2011) (noting that the Supreme Court has 2 || “long recognized that a mere error of state law is not a denial of due process”). Moreover, 3 || Nevada inmates possess no liberty interest in being released on parole, see Moor v. 4 || Palmer, 603 F.3d 658, 662-63 (9th Cir. 2010), or the application of good time credits to a 5 || life sentence, see Witherow v. Farwell, 383 Fed. App’x 688 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that 6 || good time credits do not apply to an indefinite maximum term such as a life sentence) 7 || (citing Hunt v. Warden, 903 P.2d 826, 827 (Nev. 1995)). Stratton’s claims are questions 8 || of state law and therefore are not cognizable in federal habeas corpus proceedings. 9 lll. CONCLUSION 10 It is therefore ordered that Stratton’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1- 11 || 2) under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied and this action is dismissed without prejudice. 12 It is further ordered that Stratton’s IFP application (ECF No. 4) is granted. 13 It is further ordered that Stratton is denied a certificate of appealability, as jurists 14 || of reason would not find the Court’s dismissal of the petition to be debatable or wrong. 15 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter final judgment 16 || accordingly and close this case. 17 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court is directed to make informal 18 || electronic service upon Respondents by adding Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. Ford 19 |} as counsel for the respondents and to provide Respondents an electronic copy of all items 20 || previously filed in this case by regenerating the Notice of Electronic Filing to the Office of 21 || the AG only. No response is required from Respondents other than to respond to any 22 || orders of a reviewing court. 23 DATED THIS 4" Day of November 2025. 24 29 MIRANDAM.DUss—s—S 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28