From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Huynh v. People

United States District Court, N.D. California
Oct 28, 2005
No. C 05-3823 MMC (PR), (Docket No. 2) (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2005)

Opinion

No. C 05-3823 MMC (PR), (Docket No. 2).

October 28, 2005


ORDER OF DISMISSAL


Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner pled guilty to charges of possession of a controlled substance and admitted certain sentencing enhancements based on a prior conviction and prior term of imprisonment. He was sentenced to a term of six years in state prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed and the California Supreme Court denied review.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This Court may entertain a petition for a 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). A district court shall "award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)).

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner claims (1) that the trial court incorrectly imposed a one-year term under California Penal Code § 667.5(b) based on petitioner's prior commitment to the California Youth Authority; and (2) that under state law, his prior robbery conviction should have been stricken in the interests of justice. These claims are not cognizable in federal district court because petitioner does not allege the violation of any federal law, as is required for federal habeas relief. Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A federal court may vacate a state sentencing decision only on the basis of some transgression of federal law, not state law.See Walker v. Endell, 850 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, petitioner has not stated a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. The application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

This order terminates Docket No. 2.

The Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Huynh v. People

United States District Court, N.D. California
Oct 28, 2005
No. C 05-3823 MMC (PR), (Docket No. 2) (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2005)
Case details for

Huynh v. People

Case Details

Full title:THANG DUNG HUYNH, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Oct 28, 2005

Citations

No. C 05-3823 MMC (PR), (Docket No. 2) (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2005)