(HC) Franklin v. Fisher, No. 2:2019cv02427 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 12/30/2019 ORDERING Clerk assign a district judge to this action and RECOMMENDING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be summarily dismissed and this court decline to issue the certificate of appeability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Assigned and referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Franklin v. Fisher Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIMOTHY P. FRANKLIN, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:19-cv-02427 GGH P Petitioner, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS R. FISHER, JR., Warden, Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. Petitioner has not, however, filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or 19 paid the required filing fee ($5.00). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a). Nevertheless, the 20 undersigned will recommend summary dismissal of the pending petition based on a failure to 21 raise a federal cognizable claim. 22 Petitioner requests in his habeas petition resentencing pursuant to California Senate Bill 23 136. ECF No. 1 at 2, 4. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced in Sacramento County Superior 24 Court for sexual battery, rape, lewd act on a child, and received sentencing enhancements for 25 prior violent and non-violent felonies pursuant to Cal. Pen. Code §§ 667(a), 667.5(b). Id. at 9. The 26 petition, however, is directed to the Sacramento County Superior Court. Id. at 1. It appears that 27 the petition may have been misfiled in the incorrect court. On the contrary, if petitioner intended 28 to file in this court, the petition nevertheless fails to raise a federal cognizable claim. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 A writ of habeas corpus is available under 28 U.S.C.§ 2254(a) only on the basis of some 2 transgression of federal law binding on the state courts. Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1085 3 (9th Cir. 1985); Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 1983). It is unavailable for 4 alleged error in the interpretation or application of state law. Middleton, 768 F.2d at 1085; see 5 also Lincoln v. Sunn, 807 F.2d 805, 814 (9th Cir. 1983); Givens v. Housewright, 786 F.2d 1378, 6 1381 (9th Cir. 1986). “In conducting habeas review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether 7 a conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Estelle v. McGuire, 8 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). “Senate Bill 136 amends the circumstances under which a one-year 9 sentence enhancement may be imposed under [California Pen. Code] section 667.5, subdivision 10 (b).” People v. Lopez, 254 Cal. Rptr. 3d 883, 885 (Ct. App. 2019). Petitioner asks only that he be 11 resentenced “in absentia.” Accordingly, petitioner’s claim that his sentence should be reduced 12 pursuant to Senate Bill 136 is not a cognizable federal claim. 13 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 provides for 14 summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and 15 any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” The 16 Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 also indicates that the court may deny a petition for writ of 17 habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to 18 dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. In the instant case, it is plain from the 19 petition and the exhibit provided that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. Therefore, 20 the petition should be summarily dismissed. 21 Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, this court must 22 issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. A 23 certificate of appealability may issue only “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 24 denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). For the reasons set forth in these 25 findings and recommendations, a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right has 26 not been made in this case. 1 27 1 28 Nothing in this Findings and Recommendations precludes petitioner from seeking review in the state courts. 2 1 2 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district judge to this action. 3 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 4 1. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed; and 5 2. This court decline to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 6 7 2253. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 9 after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 10 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's 11 Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive 12 the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.1991). 13 Dated: December 30, 2019 14 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
