Summary
This document is a Findings and Recommendation issued by a United States Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of California regarding a pro se habeas corpus petition filed by state prisoner Cleveland Rollarson. The Magistrate Judge recommends summarily dismissing the petition because it fails to state a cognizable federal claim, as it challenges state sentencing laws and procedures rather than federal constitutional violations. Additionally, the petition is procedurally deficient for failing to name a proper respondent having custody of the petitioner.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the petition stated a cognizable federal habeas claim when it challenged only the California courts' interpretation and application of California sentencing law and state procedural rules.
- Whether the petition was subject to dismissal because petitioner failed to name the state officer having custody of him as respondent.
- Whether the petition should be summarily dismissed under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
Holdings
- A federal habeas petition does not state a cognizable federal claim when it challenges only errors of state sentencing law or state-court procedure without alleging a violation of the federal Constitution, laws, or treaties.
- A § 2254 petitioner must name the state officer having custody of the petitioner as respondent; failure to name a proper respondent requires dismissal of the habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction.
- The petition should be summarily dismissed with prejudice because it plainly failed to state a cognizable federal habeas claim and failed to name a proper respondent.
Key quotations
“If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court” (at 1)
“federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.” (at 2)
“Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires dismissal of his habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction.” (at 3)
Factual background
Cleveland Rollarson is a California state prisoner serving a sentence of life without possibility of parole for 1986 Merced County convictions for first-degree murder, robbery, and kidnapping. He sought resentencing under California Penal Code § 1170, but the California Supreme Court denied his petition as untimely. His federal petition challenged the state courts' interpretation and application of California sentencing law and state-court procedure, and it named "Unnamed" rather than a proper custodial respondent.
Procedural history
Petitioner challenged California courts' denial of resentencing under California Penal Code § 1170 and their determination that his resentencing petition was untimely. The magistrate judge concluded that the petition raised only issues of state law, failed to name a proper habeas respondent, and therefore did not state a cognizable federal habeas claim. The matter was referred for review by an assigned district judge, with a 21-day objection period.