The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 EASTERN DIVISION
11 KENYON DARRELL BROWN, ) No. 5:20-cv-02342-RGK-JDE
)
12 Petitioner, )
) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
13 v. ) WHY THE PETITION
)
14 DAISY SHIM, San Bernardino County ) SHOULD NOT BE
) DISMISSED
District Attorney, )
15
)
16 Respondent. )
17
18
19 I.
20 INTRODUCTION
21 On November 9, 2020, Petitioner Kenyon Darrell Brown (“Petitioner”)
22 filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2019
23 conviction in San Bernardino County Superior Court. Dkt 1 (“Petition” or
24 “Pet.”). The Court has reviewed the Petition consistent with its authority
25 under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
26 District Court (“Habeas Rules”) and finds that the Petition suffers from at least
27 three defects. The Court therefore orders Petitioner to show cause why this
28 action should not be dismissed.
1 II.
2 PETITIONER’S CLAIMS
3 1. Petitioner received a “disproportionate excessive sentence”
4 because the “prosecution did not follow Penal Code 1170B” even though
5 Petitioner “presented circumstances of mitigation.” Pet. at 5 (CM/ECF
6 pagination).
7 2. “The prosecution denied [Petitioner’s] mental health court
8 screening due to prior past record,” violating Petitioner’s “due process to a fair
9 sentence trial or plea” in accordance with “In re Rodriguez” and resulting in
10 “cruel & unusual punishment.” Pet. at 7.
11 3. This case should be “remand[ed] for redetermination of sentence”
12 because the prosecution “gave [Petitioner] a plea that was una[u]thorized”
13 under “the sentencing scheme of Penal Code 1170B.” Pet. at 8.
14 III.
15 DISCUSSION
16 Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Habeas Rules, the Court must review the
17 Petition and, if it plainly appears from the Petition and any attached exhibits
18 that Petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court must dismiss the Petition.
19 Here, the Petition appears subject to dismissal for at least three reasons: (1)
20 Petitioner has not stated cognizable claims; (2) Petitioner has named the wrong
21 respondent; and (3) Petitioner failed to pay the filing fee.
22 A. Petitioner Asserts Non-Cognizable Claims
23 First, Grounds One and Three appear subject to dismissal as non-
24 cognizable as both claims are based on a violation of state law. “In conducting
25 habeas review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction
26 violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Estelle v.
27 McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991); Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 221 (1982)
28 (“A federally issued writ of habeas corpus, of course, reaches only convictions
1 obtained in violation of some provision of the United States Constitution.”).
2 Federal habeas relief is not available for errors of state law. See 28 U.S.C.
3 § 2254(a); McGuire, 502 U.S. at 67-68. The essence of Petitioner’s claims in
4 Grounds One and Three is that his sentence violates state law. Petitioner cites
5 only state law in support of his claims and identifies no federal constitutional
6 violation.1 Accordingly, these state sentencing claims are not cognizable on
7 federal habeas review.
8 As to Ground Two, Petitioner has not sufficiently set forth the facts
9 supporting this ground in a coherent manner. Habeas Rules 2(c)(1)-(c)(3)
10 require a statement of all grounds for relief and the facts supporting each
11 ground. In addition, a habeas petition should state facts that point to a real
12 possibility of constitutional error and show the relationship of the facts to the
13 claim. Habeas Rule 4 advisory committee notes to 1976 adoption; Mayle v.
14 Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005); O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th
15 Cir. 1990) (as amended). Allegations in a petition that are vague, conclusory,
16 palpably incredible, or unsupported by a statement of specific facts, are
17 insufficient to warrant relief, and are subject to summary dismissal. See, e.g.,
18 Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 204-05 (9th Cir. 1995); James v. Borg, 24 F.3d
19 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994). Ground Two falls short of the minimal clarity required
20 to proceed.
21 B. Petitioner has Named the Wrong Respondent
22 Second, the Petition fails to name an appropriate Respondent. The
23 proper respondent for a habeas petition typically is the warden of the facility in
24 which the petitioner is incarcerated. See Stanley v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21
25
1 In addition to citing “Penal Code 1170B,” Petitioner cites “In re Rodriguez”
26
and “In re Beller,” see Pet. 5, 8, but provides no information to enable the Court to
27 find and review these cases for purposes of evaluating Petitioner’s claims. Petitioner
does not provide the case citations, the year the decisions were issued, the specific
28 court(s) that issued the decisions, or any other identifying information.
1 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994) (as amended); see also Habeas Rule 2(a) (“If the
2 petitioner is currently in custody under a state-court judgment, the petition
3 must name as respondent the state officer who has custody.”). The Ninth
4 Circuit has held the failure to name the correct respondent destroys personal
5 jurisdiction. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996)
6 (as amended); Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. Here, Petitioner purports to name the
7 District Attorney for San Bernardino County, not the warden of the facility
8 where he is incarcerated.
9 C. Failure to Pay Filing Fee
10 Third, Petitioner did not pay the $5 filing fee for a federal habeas petition
11 (see 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)) and did not alternatively file an application to
12 proceed without prepayment of the filing fee (“IFP Application”) as required
13 by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Clerk is directed to send Petitioner a form IFP
14 Application by a person in custody, which Petitioner is required to prepare in
15 full, and obtain any necessary information and certification from staff at the
16 facility where he is incarcerated if he wishes to proceed without prepayment of
17 the filing fee.
18 IV.
19 CONCLUSION
20 For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is subject to dismissal. Petitioner
21 is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, by no later than thirty (30)
22 days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed
23 under Habeas Rule 4 for the reasons stated above.
24 Alternatively, Petitioner may file an amended petition within thirty (30)
25 days of the date of this Order to attempt to cure the above-referenced defects.
26 The Clerk is directed to send Petitioner a blank copy of the Central District
27 habeas petition form for this purpose. The amended petition should reflect the
28 same case number, be clearly labeled “First Amended Petition,” and be filled
1 || out completely, including naming the appropriate respondent.
2 Petitioner is cautioned that a failure to respond timely in compliance
3 || with this Order may result in this action being dismissed for the foregoing
4 ||reasons, for failure to prosecute, and for failure to comply with a Court order.
5
6 || Dated: December 09, 2020
7
8 J D. EARLY
9 nited States Magistrate Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28