Opinion
2:23-cv-01239-JDP (HC)
09-28-2023
SAMUEL W. TWEEDY, Petitioner, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.
ORDER
JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After reviewing the petition, I find that it fails to state a cognizable habeas claim. I will give him leave to amend. I will also grant his petition to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. Petitioner has recently filed a request for ruling, ECF No. 7, which I will deny as moot.
The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine the habeas petition and order a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998).
Petitioner argues that the state courts violated his rights by rejecting his petition for resentencing relief under California Senate Bill 81. ECF No. 1 at 4. This claim, based entirely on state law, cannot justify federal habeas relief. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991) (“[F]ederal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.”) (quoting Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990)). Even if this claim were recast as a due process violation it would still fail. See Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1381 (9th Cir. 1996).
Petitioner may file an amended petition that explains why he should still be allowed to proceed.
It is ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED.
2. Petitioner's request for ruling, ECF No. 7, is denied as moot.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a federal § 2254 habeas form.
4. Within thirty days of this order's entry, petitioner may file an amended habeas petition. If he does not, I will recommend this action be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.