Opinion
Case No. 18-cv-01320-JD
07-25-2018
EDUARDO RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. STU SHERMAN, Respondent.
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
Re: Dkt. No. 9
Eduardo Rodriguez, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The original petition was dismissed with leave to amend and petitioner has filed an amended petition.
DISCUSSION
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court must "specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground." Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. "'[N]otice' pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a 'real possibility of constitutional error.'" Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).
LEGAL CLAIMS
Petitioner pled no contest in 2008 to charges of voluntary manslaughter and attempted murder and admitted gun enhancements under California Penal Code sections 12022.5(a) and 12022.53(c). Petition at 25. Pursuant to a negotiated plea he was sentenced to 30 years in prison. Id. at 16, 25. Petitioner argues that his conviction must be reversed or he is entitled to resentencing pursuant to California Senate Bill 620 which was recently signed into law. Senate Bill 620 provides the trial court discretion to strike gun enhancements in California Penal Code sections 12022.5 and 12022.53. Petitioner argues he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the trial court could choose to strike his enhancements.
Petitioner was informed that even assuming that the petition was timely, he had failed to present a cognizable federal habeas claim. As noted by the Monterey County Superior Court in denying his state habeas petition, while a trial court now has discretion to strike these enhancements, petitioner was sentenced pursuant to a negotiated plea; therefore his argument was irrelevant. Petition at 25. While petitioner argued his sentence was solely due to the gun enhancements, the superior court noted that petitioner was also sentenced for the crimes of voluntary manslaughter and attempted murder, both of which are violent felonies entirely separate from the gun enhancements. Id. at 26. Petitioner had failed to present a claim demonstrating that he was in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. To the extent he argued a violation of state law, he was not entitled to federal habeas relief. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991) ("We have stated many times that federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.")
Petitioner was provided an opportunity to address these deficiencies and he has filed a brief amended petition. Yet, petitioner only cites to a state case and has failed to bring any federal claims. The state courts have already ruled on petitioner's state law claim and this Court cannot review claims for errors of state law.
CONCLUSION
1. Petitioner's motion to amend (Docket No. 9) is GRANTED and the Court has reviewed the amended petition.
2. The petition is DISMISSED for the reasons set forth above. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Clerk shall close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 25, 2018
/s/_________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.
That on July 25, 2018, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. Eduardo Rodriguez
634527
CSP SATF
PO Box 5242
Corcoran, CA 93212 Dated: July 25, 2018
Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court
By:/s/_________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO