(HC) Hubbard v. People of Kings County California, No. 1:2019cv00132 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Assign Case to District Judge; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Petition 1 Should be DISMISSED for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to Exhaust Claims signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 4/20/2020. Referred to Unassigned DJ. Objections to F&R due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZANE HUBBARD, 12 Petitioner, 13 v. 14 PEOPLE OF KINGS COUNTY CALIFORNIA, 15 Respondent. 16 Case No. 1:19-cv-00132-LJO-JDP (HC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS PETITION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST CLAIMS OBJECTIONS DUE IN 30 DAYS ECF No. 1 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 Petitioner Zane Hubbard, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus 20 21 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. Petitioner challenges his June 21, 2016 conviction for 22 battery on a non-prisoner.1 Id. at 1. On August 15, 2019, we recommended that the court dismiss 23 the petition for lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 9. In our findings and recommendations, we 24 1 25 26 27 Petitioner has filed nearly 30 other petitions for habeas corpus relief in our district challenging his 2011 conviction or the conditions of his confinement. It appears, however, that the petition now before the court is the only one petitioner has filed seeking relief from his 2016 conviction. We therefore do not consider it second or successive. See Clayton v. Biter, 868 F.3d 840, 843 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[S]econd-in-time habeas petitions challenging new or intervening judgments are not second or successive.”). 28 1 1 addressed only two of petitioner’s four claims for relief. See id. In this order, we address 2 petitioner’s remaining two claims and again recommend dismissal. 3 Discussion 4 Petitioner made four claims for relief: (1) state prison officials are attempting to sterilize 5 petitioner; (2) petitioner is being harassed by unidentified state actors for filing an administrative 6 appeal in prison; (3) the trial judge denied petitioner his right to counsel at his preliminary 7 hearing in 2016, resulting in petitioner entering an involuntary insanity plea against his will; and 8 (4) consideration of petitioner’s 2011 offense during his 2016 sentencing was unlawful. See ECF 9 No. 1 at 5, 10, 41. In our August 15, 2019 findings and recommendations, we recommended 10 dismissal of petitioner’s first two claims for lack of jurisdiction.2 Petitioner’s third and fourth claims are now before us for screening under Rule 4 of the 11 12 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding 13 must examine the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” 14 that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 15 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). Petitioner’s third claim for relief centers on the events of his 2016 preliminary hearing. 16 17 See ECF No. 1 at 41-43. Petitioner claims that his plea of involuntary insanity was illegally 18 obtained through compulsion. Specifically, he claims that the trial court denied him the right to 19 testify in his defense, that his attorney admitted to an “irreparable breakdown with his 20 professional duties,” and that the trial judge denied him the right to adequate representation. Id. 21 at 42. Petitioner sought habeas review of his claim before the California Court of Appeal; his 22 claim was dismissed on procedural grounds as untimely and the California Supreme Court denied 23 review. ECF No. 1 at 133. 24 25 26 27 28 We could not recommend a grant of habeas relief because both claims centered on petitioner’s conditions of confinement, rather than the legality or duration of his confinement. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 934 (9th Cir. 2016). We will leave our previous findings and recommendations intact to the extent that they recommend dismissal of petitioner’s first two claims. 2 2 “A federal court may not review federal claims that were procedurally defaulted in state 1 2 court—that is, claims that the state court denied based on an adequate and independent state 3 procedural rule.” See Davila v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 2058, 2064 (2017). California’s habeas 4 timeliness bar qualifies as an adequate and independent state ground to bar habeas relief in federal 5 court. See Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. 307 (2011). Therefore, because we cannot review this 6 procedurally defaulted claim, we recommend its dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 7 Petitioner’s fourth claim is that the trial judge unlawfully considered his prior 2011 8 offense under California’s “three strikes law” when sentencing him for his 2016 conviction. ECF 9 No. 1 at 135-136. Petitioner contends that his underlying 2011 conviction was illegally obtained 10 and therefore should not have been counted as a “strike” in his 2016 case. Id. Petitioner has 11 presented no evidence that he has exhausted this claim at the state level.3 Because it appears that 12 petitioner did not exhaust this claim at the state level, we recommend its dismissal for failure to 13 exhaust.4 14 Certificate of Appealability 15 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to appeal a district 16 court’s denial of a petition; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; 17 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Rule 11 Governing § 2254 Cases requires a 18 district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a 19 petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th 20 Cir. 1997). A certificate of appealability will not issue unless a petitioner makes “a substantial 21 showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard requires 22 3 23 24 25 26 27 As supposed proof of exhaustion, petitioner refers to state and federal applications for postcollateral review that he filed in 2013. ECF No. 1 at 137-38. These petitions did not challenge petitioner’s 2016 conviction and therefore did not exhaust his fourth claim for purposes of the instant federal petition. 4 Even if we were to reach the merits of petitioner’s claim, we could not recommend that he be granted relief. “Federal habeas relief does not lie for errors of state law”; we will not review state court decisions based purely on state law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 71-72 (1991). To be granted federal relief, petitioner must demonstrate that the trial court’s error so infected the trial with unfairness that the resulting conviction violated due process. See Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1974). 28 3 1 the petitioner to show that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of 2 his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to 3 deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; accord Slack v. 4 McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the 5 denial of a constitutional right. Thus, we recommend that the court not issue a certificate of 6 appealability. 7 Findings and Recommendations 8 The court should dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, and decline 9 to issue a certificate of appealability. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the 10 U.S. District Court judge presiding over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of 11 the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 12 Within thirty days of the service of the findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 13 objections to the findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. 14 That document must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 15 Recommendations.” The district judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 16 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 17 Order 18 19 The clerk of court is directed to assign this case to a district judge for the purposes of reviewing these findings and recommendations. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: 23 April 20, 2020 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 No. 206. 26 27 28 4
]]>
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.
