Opinion
No. 2:15-CV-0957-TLN-CMK-P
07-16-2015
HOWARD HERSHIPS, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner, who is not in custody and who is proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1).
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 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." In the instant case, it is plain that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. Petitioner challenges the imposition of an $1,010.00 fine by the Sacramento County Superior Court for violation of the California Vehicle Code. Such a claim is not cognizable under § 2254. See Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2010).
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) be summarily dismissed and all pending motions be denied as moot.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: July 16, 2015
/s/_________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE