# Shon Oliventa Williams v. Glen E. Pratt

> District Court, C.D. California · August 24, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10041691

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** August 24, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10041691

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 WESTERN DIVISION
11
12 SHON OLIVENTA WILLIAMS, ) No. CV 21-6587-MWF (PLA)
)
13 Petitioner, ) ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
)
14 v. )
)
15 GLEN E. PRATT, et al., )
)
16 Respondents. )
)
17
18 I
19 BACKGROUND
20 Shon Oliventa Williams (“petitioner”) initiated this action on August 12, 2021, by filing a
21 Petition for Review, which the Court construes as a Petition seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.
22 § 2254 (“Petition”). In June 2016, petitioner was convicted in the Los Angeles County Superior
23 Court, case number YA093048, after pleading no contest to carjacking (Cal. Penal Code § 215).
24 He received a sentence of fifteen years in state prison. (ECF No. 1 at 21). In the Petition, he
25 requests an injunction requiring the warden of his current facility, the California Rehabilitation
26
27
1 For ease of reference, the Court refers to the ECF-generated page numbers when citing
28
1 Center (“CRC”) located in Riverside County, to initiate the recall of his sentence pursuant to
2 California Penal Code § 1170(d)(1). (ECF No. 1 at 3-4).
3 Petitioner has filed two previous habeas actions in this Court seeking sentencing relief.
4 First, on April 5, 2021, he filed a Petition in case number CV 21-3036-MWF (PLA) (the “3036
5 Petition”) that raised the following claims: (1) he was entitled to a sentence recall under California
6 Penal Code § 1170(d)(1) based on his exemplary conduct in prison; and (2) under California
7 Senate Bill 1393 (“SB 1393”), his “nickel prior” -- i.e., a five-year sentence enhancement based
8 on a prior serious felony conviction -- should be dismissed. (CV 21-3036, ECF No. 1 at 5-6).
9 Soon after, on April 13, 2021, petitioner filed a second Petition in case number CV 21-3375-MWF
10 (PLA) (the “3375 Petition”) raising the same claims under section 1170(d)(1) and SB 1393 as well
11 as an additional claim for sentencing relief under the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s policy
12 on resentencing, Special Directive 20-14, issued in December 2020.2 (CV 21-3375, ECF No. 1
13 at 5-10).
14 In the CV 21-3036 and CV 21-3375 habeas actions, the Magistrate Judge ordered
15 petitioner to show cause why the respective Petitions should not be dismissed on the ground that
16 the claims only involved state law issues and were not cognizable on federal habeas review. (CV
17 21-3036, ECF No. 4; CV 21-3375, ECF No. 8). Petitioner subsequently dismissed both of his prior
18 Petitions voluntarily. (CV 21-3036, ECF No. 6; CV 21-3375, ECF No. 10).
19
20 II
21 DISCUSSION
22 As petitioner has been repeatedly informed via the Orders to Show Cause issued in
23 response to his 3036 Petition and 3375 Petition, he may seek federal habeas relief from his state
24 court conviction or sentence only if he is contending that he is in custody in violation of the
25 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Swarthout v.
26
27
2 See https://da.lacounty.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/SPECIAL-DIRECTIVE-20-14.pdf (last
28
1 Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219, 131 S. Ct. 859, 178 L. Ed. 2d 732 (2011) (per curiam); Estelle v.
2 McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S. Ct. 475, 116 L. Ed. 2d 385 (1991). Matters relating solely
3 to the interpretation and/or application of state law generally are not cognizable on federal habeas
4 review. See, e.g., Rhoades v. Henry, 611 F.3d 1133, 1142 (9th Cir. 2010) (“violations of state law
5 are not cognizable on federal habeas review”); Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 469 (9th Cir.
6 1994) (“Absent a showing of fundamental unfairness, a state court’s misapplication of its own
7 sentencing laws does not justify federal habeas relief.”).
8 Here, petitioner seeks an injunction requiring the warden at CRC to recommend a sentence
9 recall pursuant to California Penal Code § 1170(d)(1). In support, petitioner alleges he was
10 transferred to CRC because his previous prison closed, and that before his transfer the warden
11 at his previous prison had reviewed petitioner’s case and determined he met the criteria for a
12 sentence reduction under section 1170(d)(1) because his conduct while in custody has been
13 exceptional. Petitioner now “requests an injunction forcing [his current warden] to initiate [his]
14 sentence recall based on post conviction factors.” (ECF No. 1 at 4).
15 California Penal Code § 1170(d)(1) provides in pertinent part that the sentencing court may,
16 in the interest of justice, order a sentence recall and resentence a defendant to a reduced term
17 at any time upon the recommendation of the secretary of the California Department of Corrections
18 and Rehabilitation, the Board of Parole Hearings, or the district attorney of the county in which the
19 defendant was sentenced. Cal. Pen. Code § 1170(d)(1). The sentencing court may consider
20 post-conviction factors such as the inmate’s disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation while
21 incarcerated; evidence indicating whether the inmate’s age, time served, and diminished physical
22 condition have reduced his risk for future violence; and evidence indicating that circumstances
23 have changed since the original sentencing so that the inmate’s continued incarceration is no
24 longer in the interest of justice. Id.
25 A claim seeking relief under California Penal Code § 1170(d)(1) pertains solely to the
26 application of California sentencing law. Accordingly, such a claim is not cognizable on federal
27 habeas review. See, e.g., Bailey v. Sherman, 2020 WL 4372118, at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. June 30,
28 2020) (claim seeking recall and resentencing under section 1170(d)(1) is not cognizable), Report
1 and Recommendation accepted, 2020 WL 4368062 (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2020); Mills v. Marsh, 2020
2 WL 1180433, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2020) (“Whether Petitioner is entitled to resentencing [under
3 section 1170(d)(1)] is a question pertaining solely to state law, rendering it noncognizable on
4 federal habeas review.”), Report and Recommendation accepted, 2020 WL 5202073 (C.D. Cal.
5 Sept. 1, 2020); Nichols v. Pfeiffer, 2019 WL 4014429, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2019)
6 (resentencing claim pursuant to section 1170(d)(1) not cognizable).
7 Not only is a claim under section 1170(d)(1) not cognizable, the Court also finds that
8 petitioner’s request for injunctive relief does not fall within the “core of habeas.” “Challenges to
9 the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas
10 corpus[.]” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (quotations and citation omitted).
11 A habeas petition is the exclusive vehicle for claims brought by state prisoners that fall within “the
12 core of habeas” (id.), meaning an attack on “the very duration of [a prisoner’s] physical
13 confinement itself.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-88, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 36 L. Ed. 2d 439
14 (1973). When success on a petitioner’s habeas claim would not necessarily lead to an immediate
15 or earlier release from custody, the claim does not fall within “the core of habeas corpus.” Nettles,
16 830 F.3d at 934-35. Here, if the warden at CRC initiated a sentence recall under section
17 1170(d)(1) as petitioner requests, it is entirely speculative whether the sentencing court, upon
18 consideration of the relevant factors in petitioner’s case, would in fact reduce petitioner’s sentence.
19 Thus, because the warden’s recommendation would not necessarily affect the duration of
20 petitioner’s confinement, the Court lacks habeas jurisdiction over petitioner’s claim for injunctive
21 relief.3
22
23 3 The Court notes that petitioner attached a Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1983 (“Complaint”) to the Petition. (ECF No. 1 at 160-65). The Complaint also seeks an injunction
24 requiring the warden at CRC to initiate petitioner’s sentence recall under section 1170(d)(1), as
well as the dismissal of a five-year sentence enhancement under SB 1393. (Id. at 165). Petitioner
25
states in the Complaint that he previously filed his request for an injunction concerning his
26 sentence recall in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. (ECF No.
1 at 160). Petitioner apparently included the Complaint in his habeas filing in this Court because
27 he now believes “the injunction [request filed in the Eastern District] may be moot” as a result of
his recent transfer to a prison facility located in the Central District. (Id. at 160). Petitioner did not
28
1 Additionally, to the extent petitioner seeks the dismissal of a five-year sentence
2 enhancement under SB 1393, he fails to present a cognizable federal habeas claim. Effective
3 January 1, 2019, SB 1393 amended section 1385 of the California Penal Code to eliminate the
4 prohibition against striking five-year enhancements for prior serious felonies under California Penal
5 Code § 667(a). This resulted in state trial courts having discretion to strike such enhancements.
6 See People v. Dearborne, 34 Cal. App. 5th 250, 268 (Cal. App. 4 Dist. 2019). As numerous
7 district courts have determined, a claim seeking sentencing relief under SB 1393 is purely a state
8 law matter.4 See, e.g., Burchett v. Martel, 2020 WL 1847131, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2020)
9 (“Petitioner’s allegations that he is entitled to the benefit of S.B. 1393 involve solely the alleged
10 misapplication of California sentencing law . . . [and] fail to state a cognizable federal claim.”),
11 Report and Recommendation accepted, 2020 WL 1820518 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2020); see also
12 Bush v. Davis, 2020 WL 7043882, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2020) (concluding that a claim under
13
14
15 3(...continued)
attach any copies of his filings or court orders in his Eastern District case.
16 Based on petitioner’s assertions, it appears he is currently litigating his request for an
injunction under section 1170(d)(1) in the Eastern District. Petitioner is advised that he may not
17
file pleadings in this Court to comply with his filing requirements in the Eastern District case.
18 Petitioner is further advised that, to the extent he seeks to raise civil rights claims in this Court, a
civil rights complaint must be brought in a separate civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19 The Court declines to exercise discretion to construe this habeas action as a civil rights complaint
for the following reasons. First, the filing fee for a habeas petition is $5, while the filing fee for a civil
20 rights case is $350 plus an administrative fee of $52. Even if a prisoner is granted in forma pauperis
status with respect to filing a civil rights action, the prisoner is still liable for the full amount of the
21
$350 filing fee, by way of deductions from the prisoner’s institutional account. See 28 U.S.C. §
22 1915(b)(1). Converting the instant Petition to a civil rights action would require petitioner to pay the
larger filing fee, which he may not wish to do -- especially since it appears he is already litigating his
23 request for an injunction in the Eastern District. Next, to raise a cognizable civil rights claim, petitioner
would need to demonstrate a violation of federal law. See Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477
24 F.3d 652, 662 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Section 1983 requires [a plaintiff] to demonstrate a violation of
federal law, not state law.”). As explained herein, petitioner’s sentencing claims involve state law
25
issues and do not implicate federal law.
26
4 In any event, SB 1393 applies retroactively to cases that were not yet final when it
27 went into effect on January 1, 2019. See Dearborne, 34 Cal. App. 5th at 268. Here, because it
appears that petitioner’s 2016 conviction became final well before that date, he would be
28
1 SB 1393 involves a state law matter and is not cognizable, and listing federal district court cases
2 that have rejected SB 1393 claims for failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim).
3 Likewise, to the extent petitioner seeks habeas relief pursuant to the Los Angeles County
4 District Attorney’s policy on resentencing, Special Directive 20-14, he fails to allege a cognizable
5 federal claim. Indeed, such a claim relates only to the application of a county policy and does not
6 even implicate any state law.
7 In light of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Petition with prejudice on the basis that
8 petitioner failed to state a cognizable federal habeas claim.5
9
10 III
11 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
12 A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding without first
13 obtaining a certificate of appealability (“COA”). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
14 A COA may issue “only if . . . [there is] a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
15 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A “substantial showing . . . includes showing that reasonable jurists could
16 debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a
17 different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to
18 proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542
19 (2000) (citation omitted); see also Sassounian v. Roe, 230 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2000).
20 “When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the
21 prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when . . . jurists of reason would
22 find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and
23 that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural
24 ruling.” Id. at 484.
25
26
27 5 The Court’s dismissal is directed only at petitioner’s habeas claims set forth in the Petition.
The Court makes no ruling regarding petitioner’s Civil Rights Complaint that he attached to the
28
1 Here, reasonable jurists would find that the Court correctly determined that the Petition
2 || should be dismissed for the reasons set forth above. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability is
3|| denied.
4
5 IV
6 ORDER
7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED thatthe Petition is dismissed with prejudice. A certificate
of appealability is also denied.

11 DATED: August 24, 2021
MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD
12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10041691. Public record. Not legal advice.