(HC) Sandhu v. Fresno County Jail Sheriff Dept., No. 1:2018cv00359 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss 7 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without Prejudice signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 04/01/2019. Referred to Judge Drozd; Objections to F&R due by 4/19/2019.(Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOREEN VALDEZ SANDHU, 12 13 14 15 16 Petitioner, v. FRESNO COUNTY JAIL SHERIFF DEPT., Respondent. No. 1:18-cv-00359-JDP (HC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE OBJECTIONS DUE IN 14 DAYS ECF No. 7 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 Petitioner Doreen Valdez Sandhu, a pretrial detainee at Fresno County Jail, seeks a writ of 20 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 7. The matter is before the court for 21 preliminary review. Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must 22 examine the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that 23 the petitioner is not entitled to relief. 24 Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief, arguing that she is entitled to compassionate release 25 because she has not been receiving adequate medical care, that she is entitled to a reduced 26 sentence under California’s Proposition 47, and that her custody violates the Double Jeopardy 27 Clause under the Fifth Amendment. This court ordered petitioner to show cause why the court 28 should not dismiss the petition for her failure to exhaust state-court remedies. ECF No. 5. 1 1 Petitioner responded by stating that she exhausted her state-court remedies by serving an 2 unidentified document upon Fresno County Sheriff and the California Supreme Court. See 3 ECF No. 6. In addition, petitioner has filed an amended petition. ECF No. 7. We recommend 4 dismissing the petition for petitioner’s failure to exhaust state-court remedies and failure to state a 5 cognizable habeas claim. 6 Generally, a federal court may not grant a state prisoner’s petition for a writ of habeas 7 corpus unless the prisoner has exhausted remedies in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). To 8 satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a petitioner must “fairly present” her habeas claims “in each 9 appropriate state court . . . including a state supreme court with powers of discretionary review.” 10 Murray v. Schriro, 882 F.3d 778, 807 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 30 11 (2004)). The exhaustion requirement, rooted in the principles of comity, ensures that the state 12 courts have “the first opportunity . . . to correct the errors made in the internal administration of 13 their prisons.” Simpson v. Thomas, 528 F.3d 685, 692 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Preiser v. 14 Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 491-92 (1973)); accord Beames v. Chappell, No. 1:10-cv-01429, 2015 15 WL 403938, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2015) (collecting cases). 16 Here, petitioner has not exhausted her state-court remedies. Although this court has 17 explained to petitioner how to present habeas claims in state court, ECF No. 5 at 3-4, petitioner 18 states in her response to this court’s order to show cause, “I have submitted and have served 19 Fresno County Jail Sheriff Dept Corner Office PO Box 1788 Fresno CA 93717 as well as served 20 also as requested: California Supreme Court 350 Mcallister Street San Francisco CA 94102.” 21 ECF No. 6 at 1. Petitioner does not explain what document she served upon Fresno County 22 Sheriff or the California Supreme Court. She also does not allege facts that would allow the court 23 to evaluate whether she has fairly presented her claims in state court. 24 Petitioner fails to state a cognizable claim. She states in her petition that she has not 25 received adequate medical treatment, that she is entitled to reduced penalties under California’s 26 Proposition 47, and that her custody violates the Double Jeopardy Clause under the Fifth 27 Amendment. ECF No. 7 at 4-5. As for the first claim, this court has construed it as a claim for 28 compassionate release under California law, which allows courts to release individuals who have 2 1 incurable conditions that would result in death within six months. See generally Cal. Penal Code 2 § 1170 (e)(2)(A). But this court will not grant federal habeas relief relying on state law. See 3 Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991). Likewise, petitioner’s claim based on California’s 4 Proposition 47, which allows reduced penalties for theft and certain drug-related offenses, 5 concerns state law, not federal law. See People v. Weir, No. D073626, __ Cal. Rptr. 3d __, 2019 6 WL 1415115, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2019). Petitioner’s claim of double jeopardy concerns federal law, but petitioner does not allege 7 8 enough facts for us to evaluate her claim. She states: 9 Was Convicted in one county Year in custody Fresno Sheriff dept Jail release 4-11-17 complete sentence of conviction resentence on same case again 9-28-2017 same court room different judge[.] 10 11 ECF No. 7 at 4. This allegation is difficult to decipher and too conclusory. In addition, being 12 resentenced in a case is not the same as being prosecuted for the same offense twice. We cannot 13 tell whether there has been any violation of federal law or whether petitioner is simply confused 14 about court procedure. 15 In sum, the court should dismiss the petition for petitioner’s failure to exhaust state-court 16 remedies and failure to state a cognizable habeas claim. If petitioner believes that she is entitled 17 to relief under state law, she can vindicate her rights in state court. As for her claim of double 18 jeopardy, she can litigate that claim in state court during her criminal proceeding, presumably 19 with the assistance of counsel, given her status as a pretrial detainee. We have considered 20 converting the petition into a Section 1983 complaint in light of petitioner’s allegation of 21 inadequate medical care. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 936 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that 22 court should consider converting habeas petition into Section 1983 complaint if petition is 23 amenable to such conversion). The petition, however, is too conclusory, so it appears that 24 converting the petition into a Section 1983 complaint would result in a prompt dismissal. See 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).1 26 1 27 28 If petitioner wishes to pursue a civil rights action for being denied medical care, this dismissal without prejudice does not preclude her from filing a Section 1983 action and opening a new case. Likewise, this dismissal without prejudice does not preclude her from filing a habeas petition raising a meritorious claim in the future. 3 1 Finally, the court should decline to issue a certificate of appealability. A petitioner 2 seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to appeal a district court’s denial of a 3 petition; she may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. 4 Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Rule 11 Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that a 5 district court issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a 6 petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th 7 Cir. 1997). A certificate of appealability will not issue unless a petitioner makes “a substantial 8 showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard requires 9 the petitioner to show that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of 10 his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to 11 deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; accord Slack v. 12 McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 13 Here, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 14 Thus, the court should decline to issue a certificate of appealability. 15 I. 16 17 18 Order The clerk is directed to assign this case to a U.S. district judge. II. Findings and recommendations We recommend that the court dismiss the petition without prejudice for petitioner’s failure 19 to exhaust state-court remedies and failure to state a cognizable habeas claim. The court should 20 decline to issue a certificate of appealability. 21 Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the 22 United States District Court, Eastern District of California, these findings and recommendations 23 are submitted to the United States District Court Judge presiding over this case. Within fourteen 24 days of the service of the findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections to 25 the findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document 26 must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The 27 presiding District Judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. 28 § 636(b)(1)(C). 4 1 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: April 1, 2019 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 No. 202 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.