Opinion
Case No. CV 19-06075-RSWL (AS)
07-31-2019
CHRISTIAN MORRIS, Petitioner, v. CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Respondent.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
I. BACKGROUND
On July 15, 2019, Christian Morris ("Petitioner"), a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition"). (Docket Entry No. 1).
The Court assumes that the Petition was filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The Petition asserts the following ground for federal habeas relief: "The Court imposed enhancement time for a non violent, second striker at 20% credit rate that's supposed to be half time, 50%, the enhancement time is unlawful as of January 1, 2019." (Petition at 3). In support of his claim, Petitioner states: "CDCR (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has only given me 20% credit rate for charges that meets criteria for half time 50%. Furthermore as of January 1, 2019 there's no more double the base term enhancement time for prison prior; enhancement time for multiple felony at the same time." (Id.).
It does not appear that Petitioner has exhausted his state remedies with respect to the claim alleged in the Petition. (See Petition at 4-5). --------
A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus can only be filed by a petitioner who is in state custody and contends that such custody is in violation of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c).
The claim alleged in the Petition is incomprehensible, vague and conclusory. See Hendrix v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) ("Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are 'vague [or] conclusory" or palpably incredible . . . 'or patently frivolous or false.'"; citations omitted).
Moreover, to the extent that Petitioner has attempted to allege a sentencing error claim (i.e., denial of custody credits), this claim only involves the application and/or interpretation of state law and consequently is not cognizable on federal habeas review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991)(reiterating that it is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state court determinations on state law questions); Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 221 (1982)("A federally issued writ of habeas corpus, of course, reaches only convictions obtained in violation of some provision of the United States Constitution."); Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 469 (9th Cir. 1994); Kennick v. Superior Court, 736 F.2d 1277, 1280 (9th Cir. 1984).
Because Petitioner does not state a claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, dismissal of the Petition is warranted.
II. ORDER
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition be dismissed without prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. DATED: July 31, 2019
RONALD S.W. LEW
RONALD S.W. LEW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Presented by: /s/_________
ALKA SAGAR
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE