LaChance v. Wickham, 3:17-cv-00689

Petitioner Darren LaChance was convicted in Nevada state court of domestic battery by strangulation, battery causing substantial bodily harm, false imprisonment, and unlawful taking of a motor vehicle; he was adjudicated a habitual criminal under Nevada law.
Prosecutors filed a “notice” of intent to seek habitual criminal designation rather than an information; LaChance claims no information or arraignment occurred under NRS §§ 207.010/207.016.
LaChance raised the habitual-offender procedure issue on direct appeal; the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed his convictions.
He pursued state post-conviction relief, which was denied and affirmed on appeal; he then filed a pro se federal habeas petition asserting five grounds, including Ground 5 challenging the lack of an information/arraignment for habitual-offender proceedings.
Respondents moved to dismiss Ground 5 as not cognizable on federal habeas review; LaChance did not oppose the motion.
The district court granted the motion, holding Ground 5 raises a state-law sentencing/statutory claim cloaked in due-process language and therefore not cognizable on federal habeas review absent a showing of fundamental unfairness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ground 5 (challenge to Nevada’s habitual-offender procedure for lack of an information/arraignment) is cognizable on federal habeas	LaChance: NRS § 207.016(2) requires filing an information before sentencing; absence of an information/arraignment violated his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights	Respondents: Ground 5 presents a purely state-law statutory/sentencing issue; petitioner cites Nevada law and offers only conclusory federal claims, so it is not cognizable on federal habeas	Court: Dismiss Ground 5 — it is a noncognizable state-law claim dressed up as a federal due-process claim; petitioner did not show fundamental unfairness or an arbitrary/capricious deprivation of federal rights

Hurles v. Ryan, 752 F.3d 768 (9th Cir. 2014) (describing AEDPA limits on federal habeas review)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (federal habeas review constraints)
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (federal habeas is limited to federal constitutional claims)
Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764 (1990) (errors of state law are not grounds for federal habeas relief)
Richmond v. Lewis, 506 U.S. 40 (1992) (state sentencing error permits habeas relief only if so arbitrary or capricious as to implicate due process)
Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461 (9th Cir. 1994) (misapplication of state sentencing law does not violate due process absent fundamental unfairness)
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (a state-law claim cannot be converted into a federal claim merely by asserting a federal question)
Poland v. Stewart, 169 F.3d 573 (9th Cir. 1999) (federal habeas courts lack jurisdiction to review state procedural rule applications)
Lacy v. Lewis, 123 F. Supp. 2d 533 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (adding "due process" to state-law claims does not federalize them)
Smith v. United States, 360 U.S. 1 (1959) (federal grand jury indictment requirement)
United States v. Lopez-Vasquez, 1 F.3d 751 (9th Cir. 1993) (waiver of rights in administrative proceedings must be knowing and intelligent)