Opinion
Case No. 1:17-cv-00421-LJO-EPG-HC
05-15-2017
ARTURO RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. DAVE DAVEY, Respondent.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1)
Petitioner Arturo Rodriguez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. As the instant petition fails to state a cognizable federal habeas claim, the Court recommends dismissal of the petition.
I.
DISCUSSION
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered to file a response, if it "plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court."
In his sole claim for relief, Petitioner challenges his sentence on due process grounds, arguing that his sentence violates California Penal Code sections 1170.1(f) and 1170(b). (ECF No. 1 at 4). Whether Petitioner's sentence violates California Penal Code sections 1170.1(f) and 1170(b) is an issue of state law. Petitioner may not "transform a state-law issue into a federal one merely by asserting a violation of due process. We accept a state court's interpretation of state law, and alleged errors in the application of state law are not cognizable in federal habeas corpus." Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). See also Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011) (per curiam) ("We have stated many times that federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.") (quoting Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991)).
Page numbers refer to ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page. --------
Accordingly, Petitioner's claim is not cognizable in federal habeas corpus and should be dismissed.
III.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED.
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation." The assigned United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 15 , 2017
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE