1 2

3

4

5

6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 KHUONG QUOC VO, ) No. 8:25-cv-01619-JGB-JDE ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ) ) THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE, ) ) DISMISSED ) 15 Respondent. ) ) 16

17 I. 18 INTRODUCTION 19 On July 16, 2025, Khuong Quoc Vu (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner, 20 proceeding pro se and without paying the filing fee or seeking to proceed in 21 forma pauperis, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State 22 Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the 23 Eastern District of California, challenging the denial of his petition for 24 resentencing under California Penal Code Section 1170.95. Dkt. 1 (“Petition” 25 or “Pet.”). On July 17, 2025, the matter was transferred to this Court. Dkt. 2. 26 In accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in 27 the United States District Courts (“Habeas Rules”), the Court has reviewed the 28 Petition and finds it appears subject to dismissal. 1 II. 2 BACKGROUND 3 On October 1, 1993, an Orange County Superior Court jury found 4 Petitioner guilty of first degree murder and four counts of robbery and found 5 true a special circumstance allegation that the murder was committed during 6 the commission of a robbery, a finding that was later struck by the trial court. 7 Pet. at 2, 18-19 (CM/ECF pagination). On December 9, 1993, the trial court 8 sentenced Petitioner to 25 years to life in state prison. Id. at 2, 19. 9 In 2019, Senate Bill 1437, Cal. Stats. 2018, ch. 1015 “was enacted to 10 ‘amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences 11 doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed 12 on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or 13 was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless 14 indifference to human life.’” Walker v. Cal. Supreme Ct., 2022 WL 11337927, 15 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2022) (quoting People v. Martinez, 31 Cal. App. 5th 16 719, 723 (2019) (as modified)), accepted by 2022 WL 11269388 (C.D. Cal. 17 Oct. 13, 2022). Among other things, Senate Bill 1437 added California Penal 18 Code Section 1170.95 (later amended and renumbered as Section 1172.6), 19 which permitted a person convicted of felony murder or murder under a 20 natural and probable consequences theory to file a petition with the sentencing 21 court to vacate the murder conviction and resentence the petitioner on any 22 remaining counts under certain circumstances. Id. 23 On September 3, 2020, Petitioner filed a petition under former Section 24 1170.95 to vacate his murder conviction. Pet. at 19. The trial court issued an 25 order to show cause regarding Petitioner’s petition on January 14, 2022 and 26 held an evidentiary hearing on May 3, 2023. Id. On May 26, 2023, the trial 27 court denied Petitioner’s petition, finding that the prosecutor had proven 28 beyond a reasonable doubt that Petitioner was a major participant in the 1 underlying robbery and that Petitioner acted with reckless indifference to 2 human life. Id. Petitioner filed an appeal (id. at 13-48), and on August 29, 3 2024, the California Court of Appeal issued an unpublished decision, affirming 4 the denial order. Id. at 5; Appellate Courts Case Information (“Appellate 5 Courts”) at https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov.1 Petitioner’s Petition for 6 Review was denied on November 13, 2024. Pet. at 5; Appellate Courts. 7 The instant Petition seeks to challenge the denial of Petitioner’s petition 8 for resentencing, contending that (1) Petitioner could not be convicted of first 9 degree murder as an aider and abettor under Section 1170.95 and (2) he should 10 receive time credits for time served upon resentencing. Pet. at 3-4. 11 III. 12 DISCUSSION 13 Under Rule 4 of the Habeas Rules, the Court must review the Petition 14 and, if it plainly appears from the Petition and any attached exhibits that 15 Petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court must dismiss the Petition. Here, 16 the Petition should be dismissed because Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable 17 on federal habeas review. 18 A. Petitioner’s Claims Are Not Cognizable 19 A district court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by 20 a person in state custody only on the ground that he is in custody “in violation 21 of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 22 § 2254(a); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991) (“In conducting habeas 23

24 1 Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court takes judicial 25 notice of relevant state court records available electronically. See Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 866 (9th Cir. 2002) (taking judicial notice of opinion and briefs filed in 26 another proceeding); United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. 27 Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (courts “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if 28 those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue” (citation omitted)). 1 review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the 2 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”). “[I]t is not the province 3 of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law 4 questions.” Waddington v. Sarausad, 555 U.S. 179, 192 n.5 (2009) (quoting 5 McGuire, 502 U.S. at 67-68). Matters relating to state sentencing are governed 6 by state law and generally are not cognizable on federal habeas review. See 7 Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990) (“federal habeas corpus relief does 8 not lie for errors of state law”); Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507 9 (9th Cir. 1994) (finding claim regarding state sentencing was “not within the 10 purview of federal habeas corpus”); Moore v. Chrones, 687 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 11 1040 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (“A challenge to a state court’s application of state 12 sentencing laws does not create a federal question cognizable in federal habeas 13 review.”). Federal district courts have repeatedly held that “a state court’s 14 allegedly erroneous denial of resentencing” under Section 1170.95 “does not 15 raise an issue cognizable on federal habeas review.” Walker, 2022 WL 16 11337927, at *2 (collecting cases); see also, e.g., Quintero v. Guzman, 2025 17 WL 2176692, at *6 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2025), accepted by 2025 WL 2172191 18 (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2025); Clemons v. Johnson, 2023 WL 5184181, at *2 (C.D. 19 Cal. June 16, 2023), accepted by 2023 WL 5180324 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2023); 20 McCavitt v. Covello, 2022 WL 17813204, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2022), 21 adopted by 2023 WL 2602019 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2023); see also Bradshaw v. 22 Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005) (per curiam) (“[A] state court’s interpretation of 23 state law . . . binds a federal court sitting in habeas corpus.”). Petitioner’s 24 challenge to the denial of his Section 1170.95 resentencing petition and request 25 for resentencing raise only state law issues and therefore are not cognizable on 26 federal habeas review. 27 A state court’s misapplication of state law may rise to the level of a due 28 process violation in certain limited circumstances. Richmond v. Lewis, 506 1 U.S. 40, 50 (1992). But Petitioner cannot “transform a state-law issue into a 2 federal one merely by asserting a violation of due process.” See Langford v. 3 Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1997) (as modified); see also Cole v. 4 Sullivan, 480 F. Supp. 3d 1089, 1097 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (finding that petitioner 5 failed to raise a “due process” claim by alleging erroneous application of state 6 sentencing law to find petitioner ineligible to be resentenced under Section 7 1170.95). Here, Petitioner has made no attempt to show that the state court’s 8 finding violated his due process rights. Accordingly, Petitioner’s claims are not 9 cognizable on federal habeas review. 10 B. Other Defects 11 The Petition suffers from at least two other defects. 12 First, the Petition was not submitted on a form approved by this district. 13 Rule 2(d) of the Habeas Rules authorizes district courts to require habeas 14 petitions be filed in a form prescribed by the Local Rules. This Court has such 15 a Local Rule. See C.D. Local Civil Rule 83-16.1 (“A petition for writ of habeas 16 corpus . . . shall be submitted on the forms approved and supplied by the 17 Court.”). The Petition appears subject to dismissal for failure to use a Court- 18 approved form. 19 Second, Petitioner has not named a proper respondent. The Ninth 20 Circuit has held that the failure to name the correct respondent destroys 21 personal jurisdiction. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 22 1996) (as amended); Stanley v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 23 1994) (as amended). Typically, the proper respondent for a habeas petition is 24 the warden of the facility where the petitioner is incarcerated. See Stanley, 21 25 F.3d at 360; see also Habeas Rule 2(a) (“If the petitioner is currently in custody 26 under a state-court judgment, the petition must name as respondent the state 27 officer who has custody.”). Thus, Petitioner must name the warden of the 28 facility where he is incarcerated. 1 IV. 2 ORDER 3 For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is subject to dismissal. Petitioner 4 |lis ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing, by no later than thirty (30) days 5 || from the date of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed under 6 || Habeas Rule 4 for the reasons stated above. 7 Alternatively, instead of filing a response to the instant Order, Petitioner 8 || may request a voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of 9 || Civil Procedure 41(a). The Clerk is directed to provide a Notice of Dismissal 10 || form. However, the Court warns that any dismissed claims may be subject to 11 statute of limitations under Section 2244(d)(1). 12 13 Dated: August 12, 2025 je de 14 Lie AG 15 HN D. EARLY 6 United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28