33 F. Supp. 3d 1173
C.D. Cal.2014Background
- Petitioner Tracy Nelson filed a 28 U.S.C. §2254 habeas petition in the Central District of California on Oct 25, 2013.
- Respondent moved to dismiss the petition as failing to state a cognizable federal claim; Petitioner opposed.
- California state court proceedings included denial of a §1170.126 recall petition; subsequent denials by the California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court.
- Petitioner sought resentencing under California §1170.126 after Proposition 36/Three Strikes reforms, arguing the robbery did not involve force or injury.
- The magistrate judge recommended denying the petition and the district court adopted the recommendation, dismissing the petition with prejudice and denying a COA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner states a cognizable federal habeas claim over state sentencing | Nelson seeks relief under §1170.126 as a matter of federal due process | Petition concerns state sentencing law; no federal constitutional claim | Petition dismissed for lack of a federal claim |
| Whether a Certificate of Appealability should issue | Petitioner argues COA should be granted | Court denies COA given no substantial showing of a constitutional denial | COA denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859 (2011) (no federal habeas relief for state-law sentencing errors unless constitutional)
- Miller v. Vasquez, 868 F.2d 1116 (9th Cir. 1989) (state sentencing questions generally not cognizable on federal habeas)
- Caterpillar v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (cannot transform state-law issue into federal claim by adding due process labels)
- Poland v. Stewart, 169 F.3d 573 (9th Cir. 1999) (state-law issues dressed as federal claims remain state-law claims)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (federal habeas relief only for federal constitutional claims)
- Souch v. Schaivo, 289 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 2002) (state sentencing discretionary claims not cognizable)
- Little v. Crawford, 449 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2006) (state-law errors not federal due process violations)
- Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 1995) (federal review of state sentencing under Booker/Three Strikes context)
- Richmond v. Lewis, 506 U.S. 40 (1992) (due process requires a federal showing of fundamental unfairness in sentencing)