(HC) Martinez v. Sherman, No. 1:2020cv00334 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Assign District Judge; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Petition (Doc. 1 ) be DISMISSED signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/31/2020. Referred to Judge Drozd. 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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MANUEL MARTINEZ, 12 Petitioner, v. 13 14 SHERMAN, Respondent. 15 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00334-JLT (HC) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION [THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE] 17 Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition in this Court on March 4, 2020. (Doc. 1.) After 18 conducting a preliminary screening of the petition, the Court concludes that the petition fails to present 19 any cognizable grounds for relief. In addition, Petitioner’s first and third claims for relief violate the 20 statute of limitations. Therefore, the Court will recommend that the petition be SUMMARILY 21 DISMISSED. 22 I. 23 PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections serving a sentence of 24 32 years to life, pursuant to a judgment of the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, entered 25 on January 22, 1998, following his conviction by jury of one count of transportation of 26 methamphetamine and one count of possession of methamphetamine. Martinez v. Terhune, Case No. 27 28 1 1 1:00-cv-06278-OWW-HGB.1 The judgment was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal, Fifth 2 Appellate District in an unpublished opinion filed on January 21, 2000. Id. Review was summarily 3 denied by the California Supreme Court on March 29, 2000. Id. 4 Petitioner previously filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court on August 9, 2000, 5 which was dismissed with leave to amend for failure to exhaust, and ultimately dismissed for failure to 6 comply with a court order. Id. On March 4, 2020, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition in this 7 Court. (Doc. 1.) 8 II. DISCUSSION A. Preliminary Review of Petition 9 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary 10 11 review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must summarily dismiss a petition “[i]f it 12 plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in 13 the district court . . . .” Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990). The Advisory 14 Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, 15 either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an 16 answer to the petition has been filed. 17 B. Failure to State a Cognizable Federal Claim 18 The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) states: 19 The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to a 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. 20 21 22 (emphasis added). See also Rule 1 to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 23 District Court. The Supreme Court has held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a 24 person in custody upon the legality of that custody . . .” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 25 (1973). To succeed in a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner must demonstrate that the 26 27 28 1 The Court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). 2 1 adjudication of his claim in state court (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 2 3 4 5 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2). In addition to the above, Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 6 Cases requires that the petition: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 7 8 9 Specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner; State the facts supporting each ground; State the relief requested; Be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten; and Be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner or by a person authorized to sign it for the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2242. 10 Petitioner fails to allege a violation of the Constitution or Federal law. It is well-settled that 11 12 federal habeas relief is not available to state prisoners challenging state law. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 13 U.S. 62, 67 (1991) (“We have stated many times that federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for 14 errors of state law); Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1997) (“alleged errors in the 15 application of state law are not cognizable in federal habeas corpus” proceedings). Petitioner challenges the state court’s application of state sentencing laws based on alleged 16 17 new case law.2 Such claims do not give rise to a federal question cognizable on federal habeas review. 18 Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764 (1990); Sturm v. California Youth Authority, 395 F.2d 446, 448 (9th 19 Cir. 1967) (“a state court’s interpretation of its [sentencing] statute does not raise a federal question”). 20 To state a claim for relief, Petitioner must demonstrate that the state committed sentencing error, and 21 that the error was “so arbitrary or capricious as to constitute an independent due process” violation. 22 Richmond v. Lewis, 506 U.S. 40 (1992). Petitioner has failed to demonstrate such a violation here, 23 because on its face, the petition shows no sentencing error or arbitrariness. In addition, Petitioner’s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial 24 25 misconduct are untimely. Also, to the extent Petitioner is trying to raise claims by attaching his state 26 briefs, those claims are also untimely. The AEDPA imposes a one-year period of limitation on 27 28 Petitioner also lists as a fourth claim that “Petitioner’s Illiterate! Needs Assistance!” (Doc. 1 at 14.) However, this is clearly not a cognizable federal claim. 2 3 1 petitioners seeking to file a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 2 Pursuant to § 2244(d)(1)(A), the one-year limitations period runs from the date on which the judgment 3 became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review. 4 According to California Rules of Court, Rule 8.308(a), a criminal defendant convicted of a felony 5 must file his notice of appeal within sixty days of the rendition of judgment. See People v. Mendez, 6 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1086 (1999) (citing prior Rule of Court, Rule 31(d)). In this case, judgment was 7 entered by the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno on January 22, 1998. Martinez v. 8 Terhune, Case No. 1:00-cv-06278-OWW-HGB. The judgment was affirmed by the California Court 9 of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District in an unpublished opinion filed on January 21, 2000. Id. Review 10 was summarily denied by the California Supreme Court on March 29, 2000. Id. The one-year period 11 under the AEDPA commenced the following day, on March 30, 2000, and concluded one year from 12 that date, on March 29, 2001. Petitioner did not file the instant federal petition until March 4, 2020, 13 nor did he file anything in the state courts during the limitations period. Thus, these claims are 14 untimely. See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 2001). 15 III. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to assign a district judge to the case. 16 17 IV. RECOMMENDATION Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the habeas corpus petition be SUMMARILY 18 19 ORDER DISMISSED. 20 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 21 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 22 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 23 thirty days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections with the Court. Such 24 a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” 25 The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 4 1 2 Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 31, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 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.
