William Joe Long v. George Jaime

Opinion

2 O 3

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 WILLIAM JOE LONG, Case No. 2:19-cv-07398-FMO-KES

12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

14 GEORGE JAIME, Warden,

15 Respondent.

17 In August 2019, William Joe Long (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of

18 Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the

19 “Petition”). (Dkt. 1.) The Petition fails to allege that Petitioner is in custody in

20 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 21 I. 22 BACKGROUND 23 In 2009, Petitioner was sentenced to a 27-year term of imprisonment after he 24 pled guilty to manslaughter. (Dkt. 1 at 2.) The Petition, however, does not 25 challenge Petitioner’s 2009 conviction.1 It “concerns Prop. #57.” (Id.) As a claim 26 27 1 If it did, it would be an unauthorized successive § 2254 petition. In October 2017, Petitioner filed a § 2254 petition challenging his 2009 manslaughter conviction 28 based on the grounds that: (1) it was “doubled” improperly pursuant to California 1 for relief, Plaintiff alleges, “Prop. #57 signed in law allowed non-violent offenders 2 to seek early parole on the portion of the term deemed non-violent.” (Id. at 5.) 3 California’s Proposition 57, approved by voters in November 2016, 4 expanded eligibility for parole for certain felons convicted of non-violent crimes. 5 See Travers v. California, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18715, 2018 WL 707546 at *2-3 6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2018). Specifically, Proposition 57 added language to the 7 California Constitution, providing, in relevant part: “Any person convicted of a 8 nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole 9 consideration after completing the full term of his or her primary offense.” Cal. 10 Const., art. I, § 32(a)(1). Proposition 57 also gave the California Department of 11 Corrections (“CDCR”) the “authority to award credits earned for good behavior.” 12 Cal. Const., art. I, § 32(a)(2). 13 Petitioner does not allege that he is eligible for early parole under Proposition 14 57.2 He does not allege that the CDCR denied him early parole or credits for good 15 behavior. But even if Petitioner could amend his Petition to add such factual 16 allegations, he would still fail to state a claim for federal habeas relief. 17 On September 4, 2019, the Court issued an order to show cause why the 18 Petition should not be summarily dismissed. (Dkt. 4.) Petitioner never responded. 19 II. 20 DISCUSSION 21 Absent an independent constitutional violation, “it is not the province of a 22 federal habeas court to re-examine state-court determinations on state-law 23

24 Penal Code section 1170.12(a)-(d); and (2) the trial court “‘unlawfully’ applied a (5) year prison prior” which violated, among other provisions, the Double Jeopardy 25 clause. (2:17-cv-07980-FMO-KES [“Long I”], Dkt. 1 at 5-6.) In June 2018, the 26 Court dismissed the petition in Long I as untimely. (Id., Dkts. 11 [Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)], 20 [Order Accepting R&R], 21 [Judgment].) 27 2 Petitioner was convicted of manslaughter, a felony that California law defines as 28 “violent.” Pen. Code § 667.5(c). 1 | questions.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991); Bonin v. Calderon, 59 2 | F.3d 815, 841 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that a violation of a “state law right does not 3 | warrant habeas corpus relief’). 4 Here, at best, Petitioner alleges that he has been wrongfully deprived of some 5 | state law right affecting his eligibility for parole. Because federal habeas corpus 6 || only provides a remedy for violations of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the 7 | United States, Petitioner’s claim of state law error is not cognizable. See Swarthout 8 || v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 222 (2011) (“[T]he responsibility for assuring that the 9 | constitutionally adequate procedures governing California’s parole system are 10 || properly applied rests with California courts, and is no part of the Ninth Circuit's 11 | business.”); see also Wilson v. Biter, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106790, 2018 WL 12 | 3197815, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 26, 2018) (dismissing claim of Proposition 57 error 13 | because it was “not cognizable under federal habeas review”). 14 III. 15 CONCLUSION 16 This action is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal 17 || habeas relief. 18 19 DATED: November 1, 2019 —_/s/ 20 FERNANDO M. OLGUIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 Presented by:

25 Kost Spat) KAREN E. SCOTT 26 | United States Magistrate Judge 27 28