Opinion
No. CIV-20-538-R
09-29-2020
CAMERON LEE SCHEMMER, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL TAYLOR, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 14). United States District Court Judge David. L. Russell has referred the matter to the undersigned magistrate judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). In accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the undersigned has examined the Petition. After review, the undersigned recommends that the court DISMISS the Petition on screening.
I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
The Court is required to review habeas petitions promptly and to "summarily dismiss [a] petition without ordering a responsive pleading," Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005), "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." See R. 4, R. Governing § 2254 Cases in U.S. Dist. Ct.
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In Kingfisher County Case No. CF-2017-96, Mr. Schemmer was convicted of forcible sodomy and three counts of lewd molestation. (ECF No. 14:1). Petitioner appealed, and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed the conviction. (ECF No. 14:2). Mr. Schemmer sought no other review in any court, and filed a habeas petition in this Court on August 31, 2020. (ECF No. 14). In the Petition, Mr. Schemmer identifies his sole ground for relief as: "Court of Criminal Appeals." (ECF No. 14:5). As supporting facts, Petitioner states:
No evidence, did not let any of his witnesses come forward & testify. My lawyer just said I had to talk to the judge. I did not understand what they meant[.](ECF No. 14:5). And in his request for relief, Petitioner states: "I think I was convicted wrongfully it was all heresay[.]" (ECF No. 14:14).
III. DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION
Two interpretations of the allegations in the habeas petition exist, but neither suffice to support a claim for habeas relief. As stated, Ground One simply asserts: "Court of Criminal Appeals." (ECF No. 14:5). Federal habeas petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 are aimed at vindicating federal constitutional rights, not rights that are based on state law. To the extent Petitioner alleges the OCCA had somehow erred in adjudicating the direct appeal, such ground should be dismissed as not cognizable on habeas review. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) ("[F]ederal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law," and "it is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions." (internal quotation marks omitted); Sellers v. Ward, 135 F.3d 1333, 1339 (10th Cir. 1998) ("because the constitutional error [Petitioner] raises focuses only on the State's post-conviction remedy and not the judgment which provides the basis for his incarceration, it states no cognizable federal habeas claim.").
Second, to the extent Petitioner contends that he was wrongfully convicted on hearsay only; he was denied "witnesses;" and he "did not understand what [his lawyer and the judge] meant," the Court should conclude that Mr. Schemmer has failed to allege any specific ground for habeas relief. See ECF No. 14:5-14. Mr. Schemmer does not explain: (1) the nature of the alleged hearsay or how it pertained to his conviction; (2) which witnesses were denied, on what basis, or how such denial resulted in a wrongful conviction; or (3) what, exactly, he did not understand regarding any statements made by his lawyer and/or the trial judge. As a result, the Court should dismiss the Petition. See Moore v. Gibson, 195 F.3d 1152, 1180 n. 17 (10th Cir. 1999) (Habeas action noting that the Court "do[es] not consider unsupported and undeveloped issues."); see also Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding that even pro se plaintiffs must allege sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim can be based, and that conclusory allegations will not suffice); Bradford v. Williams, 479 F. App'x 832, 836 (10th Cir. 2012) (dismissing habeas petitioner's appeal alleging insufficient evidence for the conviction because the petitioner failed to provide "even the most basic of details surrounding the alleged violation[].").
IV. RECOMMENDATION
The Court should DISMISS the petition on filing, without prejudice.
V. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
The Petitioner is advised of his right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by October 16, 2020,6in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The parties are further advised that failure to make timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained herein. Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010).
VI. STATUS OF REFERRAL
This Report and Recommendation terminates the referral by the District Judge in this matter.
ENTERED on September 29, 2020.
/s/_________
SHON T. ERWIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE