Valdovinos v. Macomber

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 20, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-05351
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 FELIX VALDOVINOS, Case No. 23-cv-05351-JD

8 Petitioner, ORDER RE DISMISSAL v. 9

10 JEFF MACOMBER, Respondent. 11

12 13 Felix Valdovinos, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 14 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The original petition was dismissed with leave to amend, and 15 petitioner has filed an amended petition. 16 BACKGROUND 17 Petitioner was found guilty of first-degree murder in 1999. Petition at 1-2. In 2023, he 18 filed a motion in the Santa Clara County Superior Court for resentencing and to invalidate certain 19 restitution fines because of several new state laws. Id. at 10. The petition was denied for failure to 20 state a prima facie case for relief, except a restitution fee of $140.50 was vacated and an amended 21 abstract of judgment was issued. Id. at 12. The superior court noted that petitioner argued that he 22 was entitled to resentencing without providing any specific facts or law to support his assertion. 23 Id. at 10. The California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court denied his petitions. Id. 24 at 16-17. 25 DISCUSSION 26 STANDARD OF REVIEW 27 The Court may consider a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 1 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. 2 Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading 3 requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of 4 habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court 5 must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting 6 each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ 7 pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility 8 of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 9 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). 10 LEGAL CLAIMS 11 The federal writ of habeas corpus is available only to persons “in custody” at the time the 12 petition is filed. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c), 2254(a); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968). 13 This requirement is jurisdictional. Id. The Ninth Circuit has specifically held that “an attack on a 14 restitution order is not an attack on the execution of a custodial sentence . . . . [Thus,] § 2254(a) 15 does not confer jurisdiction over a challenge to a restitution order.” Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 16 982-83 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Kramer, 195 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 1999)). Similarly, 17 “the imposition of a fine, by itself, is not sufficient to meet § 2254’s jurisdictional requirements.” 18 Bailey, 599 F.3d at 979 (citing Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1183 (9th Cir. 1998). This 19 is so even if, as here, the petitioner is actually in custody at the time she or he challenges the fine 20 or restitution order. Id. 979-80. 21 In this federal habeas petition, petitioner says that the superior court vacated his restitution 22 fee of $140.50 and issued an amended abstract of judgment without providing counsel in violation 23 of his rights. Petitioner’s claim challenges only the restitution and fines related to his conviction 24 and sentence. The “custody” requirement of Section 2254(a) is not satisfied, and the Court does 25 not have jurisdiction to entertain this claim. Petitioner did not raise or exhaust any claim 26 regarding the validity or duration of his confinement. 27 To the extent petitioner’s claim challenging his restitution order and fines alleges 1 relief does not lie for violations of state law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (a 2 || federal habeas court cannot reexamine a state court's interpretation and application of state law). 3 Nor does petitioner’s argument that he was denied counsel state a federal claim. There is 4 || no federal constitutional right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings. Because “[t]here is no 5 constitutional right to an attorney in state post-conviction proceedings . . . a petitioner cannot 6 || claim constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel in such proceedings.” Coleman v. 7 Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); see also Davila v. Davis, 582 U.S. 521, 524 (2017) ({A] 8 || prisoner does not have a constitutional right to counsel in state postconviction proceedings. . . .”); 9 }} 28 U.S.C. § 2254(1) (“The ineffectiveness or incompetence of counsel during Federal or State 10 || collateral post-conviction proceedings shall not be a ground for relief in a proceeding arising under 11 section 2254.”). 12 The original petition was dismissed with leave to amend to address these issues. The 13 amended petition contains the same allegations and claims from the original petition. Petitioner 14 || cannot obtain relief for his claims of denial of counsel at a post-conviction hearing or regarding 15 the restitution fee. 16 CONCLUSION 3 17 The petition is dismissed without leave to amend and a Certificate of Appealability is S 18 denied. The Clerk is requested to close this case. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: February 20, 2024 21 22 JAMES ATO 23 United St@tes District Judge 24 25 26 27 28