Singa Rudolph Jones v. Raymond Madden

[6] 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [12] 13 | SINGA JONES, Case No. ED CV 20-1802 CJC (MRW) id Patina: ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 Vv. 16 | RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden, Le Respondent. [18] The Court summarily dismisses Petitioner’s habeas action without prejudice for failure to state a claim. kkk 22 1. Petitioner is currently serving a 29-year term in state prison 28 based on his 2009 robbery conviction. 24 2. Petitioner previously sought habeas relief in this Court related 2 to that conviction. The Court denied relief in Petitioner’s earlier habeas . action. Jones v. Virga, No. CV 12-486 CJC (MRW) (C.D. Cal.). The United [28] 1 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined to issue a certificate 2 of appealability in that action. (Docket # 33.) 3 3. Petitioner’s current habeas petition appears to present a state 4 law challenge to the legality of an enhancement imposed at his original 5 sentencing. (Petition at 5-6.) 6 4. Magistrate Judge Wilner ordered Petitioner to explain why the 7 action should not be dismissed on a variety of procedural and substantive 8 bases, including timeliness, successiveness, and failure to state a federal 9 constitutional claim. (Docket # 4.) 10 5. Petitioner submitted a response to Judge Wilner’s order. 11 (Docket # 9.) The response made clear that Petitioner seeks federal court 12 review of the state courts’ sentencing-related decisions based on the state’s 13 recent enactment of Proposition 47 (recharacterizing certain drug and theft 14 offenses as misdemeanor crimes). (Docket # 9 at 3.) 15 * * * 16 6. If it “appears from the application that the applicant or person 17 detained is not entitled” to habeas relief, a court may summarily dismiss a 18 habeas action. 28 U.S.C. § 2243 ; see also Rule 4 of Rules Governing 19 Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts (petition may be 20 summarily dismissed if petitioner plainly not entitled to relief); Local Civil 21 Rule 72-3.2 (magistrate judge may submit proposed order for summary 22 dismissal to district judge “if it plainly appears from the face of the petition 23 [ ] that the petitioner is not entitled to relief”). 24 7. For a state prisoner to obtain habeas relief, s/he must properly 25 allege that the decisions of the state court “(1) resulted in a decision that 26 was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly 27 established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the [28] 1 United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an 2 unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented 3 in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). Habeas corpus relief is 4 reserved for claims in which a prisoner contends that a federal 5 constitutional error affects “the validity of the prisoner’s continued 6 incarceration.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F. 3d 850, 856 (9th Cir. 2003). 7 8. A state prisoner must fairly present a federal constitutional 8 claim for habeas consideration. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). 9 Driveby references to the federal constitution or vague concepts like “a fair 10 trial” or “fair sentencing” are insufficient to fairly present and exhaust the 11 legal basis for a constitutional claim. Castillo v. McFadden, 399 F.3d 993 , 12 999 (9th Cir. 2005); Fields v. Waddington, 401 F.3d 1018, 1021 (9th Cir. 13 2005). 14 9. A challenge to a state court’s interpretation or application of its 15 own sentencing laws is generally not subject to federal habeas review. 16 Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990); Campbell v. Blodgett, 997 F.2d 17 512, 522 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[a]s the Supreme Court has stated time and 18 again, federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.”); 19 Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 469 (9th Cir. 1994) (“a state court’s 20 misapplication of its own sentencing laws does not justify federal habeas 21 relief.”) 22 10. That prohibition extends to state sentencing initiatives such as 23 Proposition 47. Ample authority establishes that “assertions that the state 24 court erred in declining to resentence a petitioner under [ ] Proposition 47 25 typically fail to state a cognizable federal habeas claim.” Bradley v. 26 Sherman, No. CV 20-6294 JVS (SHK), 2020 WL 5804076 at *3 (C.D. Cal. 27 2020) (collecting cases); Ashanti v. Barreto, No. CV 15-10026 DDP (AGR), [1] 2018 WL 4381541 at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 8, 2018) (“A claim premised on 2 Proposition 47 is not cognizable on federal habeas review.”). 3 * * * 4 11. Petitioner’s original petition and his supplemental statement 5 make clear that he seeks federal review of his failed attempt to obtain state 6 court relief under Proposition 47. (Docket # 9 at 3 (“Proposition 47 became 7 available after Petitioner had already been sentenced, making it available 8 for him to apply.”).) 9 12. Further, none of the state law decisions upon which Petitioner 10 purports to base his current application (Ward, Humphrey, Le (cited at 11 Docket # 1 at 5-6, # 6)) is, or plausibly relies on, a statement of the United 12 States Supreme Court clearly establishing a principle of federal 13 constitutional law relevant to Petitioner’s claims of sentencing error. 14 13. As such, the current action does not present a federal 15 constitutional question upon which this Court can properly grant habeas 16 relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). Lewis, 497 U.S. at 780 ; Christian, 41 F.3d 17 at 469 ; Bradley, 2020 WL 5804076 at *3. The habeas action must be 18 dismissed.1 [26] 27 1 Because the action clearly does not state a federal cause of action, the Court declines to address the other procedural or successiveness issues raised 28 in the magistrate judge’s screening order. 1 Therefore, the present action is hereby DISMISSED without 2 | prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; L.R. 72-3.2. a IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ge 6 | Dated: October 20, 2020 é 7 HON. CORMAC J. CARNEY 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE [9] 10 | Presented by: [11] 12 / 13 | HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER 14 | UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [16] LE