From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Duarte v. Lizzaraga

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Oct 6, 2015
2:15-cv-1902 TLN CKD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2015)

Opinion


STEVEN A. DUARTE, Petitioner, v. JOHN LIZZARAGA, Respondent. No. 2:15-cv-1902 TLN CKD P United States District Court, E.D. California. October 6, 2015

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

         Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis.

         Examination of the affidavit reveals petitioner is unable to afford the costs of this action. Accordingly, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

         Petitioner challenges his 2012 conviction for first degree murder following a jury trial in the Sacramento County Superior Court. He raises three claims: (1) the trial court erred by admitting evidence of prior acts of domestic violence under Cal. Evid. Code § 1109, (2) the trial court erred by admitting prior acts of domestic violence under Cal. Evid. Code § 352, and (3) the trial court abused its discretion by denying petitioner's untimely motion (made on the day of sentencing) to discharge his attorney and represent himself.

         Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 provides for summary dismissal of a habeas petition "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." Here, while petitioner asserts in a conclusory way that his "federal constitutional rights to due process" have been violated, his claims essentially allege violations of California evidence law and procedure. Errors of state law are not cognizable on federal habeas review. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991) (standard of review for federal habeas court "is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.").

         Thus the court will summarily dismiss the petition. However, petitioner will be granted one opportunity to amend in an attempt to state a claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

         Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. Petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2);

         2. Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with leave to amend within thirty days from the date of this order;

By setting this deadline, the court is making no finding or representation that the petition is not subject to dismissal as untimely.

         3. Any amended petition must bear the case number assigned to this action and the title "Amended Petition"; and

         4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the court's form for application for writ of habeas corpus.


Summaries of

Duarte v. Lizzaraga

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Oct 6, 2015
2:15-cv-1902 TLN CKD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2015)
Case details for

Duarte v. Lizzaraga

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN A. DUARTE, Petitioner, v. JOHN LIZZARAGA, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Oct 6, 2015

Citations

2:15-cv-1902 TLN CKD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2015)