1 2

3

4

5

6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 MYRA RANGEL, ) No. 2:23-cv-03754-DSF-JDE ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ) ) THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE 14 DELA CRUZ, Warden, ) ) DISMISSED ) 15 Respondent. ) ) 16

17 I. 18 INTRODUCTION 19 On May 15, 2023, the Court received from Myra Rangel (“Petitioner”), 20 a state prisoner at Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla, 21 California, proceeding pro se, a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a 22 Person in State Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 1 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). 23 Petitioner also submitted a declaration in support of an application to proceed 24 in forma pauperis. Dkt. 2 (“IFP Request”). 25 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 26 States District Courts (“Habeas Rules”), the Court has reviewed the Petition 27 and orders Petitioner to respond as set forth further below. 28 1 II. 2 PETITIONER’S CLAIMS 3 (1) Petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were 4 violated when the Court failed to provide relief for her Senate Bill 775 Petition. 5 Pet. at 6 (CM/ECF pagination). 6 (2) Senate Bill 775 applies retroactively to Petitioner’s attempted 7 murder case as well as the conspiracy to commit murder. Pet. at 9. 8 (3) Review is necessary on whether a trial court must issue an order to 9 show cause where a jury is instructed on the natural and probable 10 consequences doctrine as a theory of liability for attempted murder and the 11 jury convicts on first degree attempted murder. Pet. at 11. 12 III. 13 DISCUSSION 14 Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Habeas Rules, the Court must review the 15 Petition and, if it plainly appears from the Petition and any attached exhibits 16 that Petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court must dismiss the Petition. This 17 Petition appears subject to dismissal because Petitioner has not asserted any 18 cognizable claims. 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 she 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 review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the 24 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”). “[I]t is not the province 25 of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law 26 questions.” Waddington v. Sarausad, 555 U.S. 179, 192 n.5 (2009) (quoting 27 McGuire, 502 U.S. at 67-68). Matters relating to state sentencing are governed 28 by state law and generally are not cognizable on federal habeas review. See 1 Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990) (“federal habeas corpus relief does 2 not lie for errors of state law”); Sturm v. Cal. Adult Auth., 395 F.2d 446, 448 3 (9th Cir. 1967) (per curiam) (“a state court’s interpretation of its statute does 4 not raise a federal question”); Moore v. Chrones, 687 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1040 5 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (“A challenge to a state court’s application of state sentencing 6 laws does not create a federal question cognizable in federal habeas review.”). 7 Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief on the ground that she is entitled to 8 resentencing under Cal. Penal Code § 1172.6 (previously numbered as Cal. 9 Penal Code § 1170.95) pursuant to Senate Bill Nos. 775 and 1437. Pet. at 6-15. 10 However, federal district courts have repeatedly held that “a state court’s 11 allegedly erroneous denial of resentencing” under Cal. Penal Code § 1172.6 12 “does not raise an issue cognizable on federal habeas review.” Walker v. 13 California Supreme Ct., 2022 WL 11337927, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2022), 14 report and recommendation adopted by 2022 WL 11269388 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 15 13, 2022); McCavitt v. Covello, 2022 WL 17813204, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 16 2022), adopted by 2023 WL 2602019 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2023); Carter v. 17 Montgomery, 2021 WL 2044499, at *11 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2021) (“[A]ny 18 claim of an entitlement to resentencing [under Senate Bill 1437] is strictly a 19 matter of state law to which this Court must defer”) adopted by 2021 WL 20 2042723 (C.D. Cal. May 13, 2021); see also Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 21 76 (2006) (per curiam) (“[A] state court’s interpretation of state law . . . binds a 22 federal court sitting in habeas corpus.”). 23 A state court’s misapplication of state law may rise to the level of a due 24 process in certain limited circumstances. Richmond v. Lewis, 506 U.S. 40, 50 25 (1992). But Petitioner cannot “transform a state-law issue into a federal one 26 merely by asserting a violation of due process.” See Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 27 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1997) (as modified); see also Cole v. Sullivan, 480 F. 28 Supp. 3d 1089, 1097 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (finding that petitioner failed to raise a 1 “due process” claim by alleging erroneous application of state sentencing law 2 to find petitioner ineligible to be resentenced under Section 1170.95). 3 Here, the Petition vaguely references the Due Process Clause but 4 Petitioner’s allegations do not facially reflect the real possibility of federal 5 constitutional error. Pet. at 6. Petitioner’s cursory reference to the Fourteenth 6 Amendment is insufficient to transform a state-law issue into a federal one. See 7 Langford, 110 F.3d at 1389. Thus, Petitioner has failed to allege claims that are 8 cognizable on federal habeas review. 9 IV. 10 ORDER 11 For the foregoing reason, the Petition is subject to dismissal. Petitioner is 12 ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, by no later than thirty (30) days 13 from the date of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed under 14 Habeas Rule 4 for the reason stated above. 15 Alternatively, Petitioner may file an amended petition within thirty (30) 16 days of the date of this Order to attempt to cure the above-referenced defects. 17 The Clerk is directed to send Petitioner a blank copy of the Central District 18 habeas petition form for this purpose. The amended petition should reflect the 19 same case number, be clearly labeled “First Amended Petition,” and be filled 20 out completely. In ¶ 8 of the First Amended Petition, Petitioner should specify 21 separately and concisely each federal constitutional claim that she seeks to 22 raise and answer all of the questions pertaining to each such claim. If 23 Petitioner contends that she exhausted his state remedies, she should list such 24 filings in ¶¶ 4-6 of the habeas petition form. Petitioner should specify all of the 25 grounds raised in such filings, along with the case number, the date of 26 decision, and the result. 27 Petitioner is cautioned that a failure to respond timely in compliance 28 1 || with this Order could result in this action being dismissed for the foregoing 2 ||reasons, for failure to prosecute, and for failure to comply with a Court order. 3 ||See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 4 5 || Dated: May 30, 2023

7 D. EARLY 3 nited States Magistrate Judge

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28