INTRODUCTION

18 19 On September 11, 2023, Erin Ramon Amie (“Petitioner”), a 20 California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a First Amended 21 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”) in the United States 23 District Court for the Southern District of California. (Dkt. No. 24 7). Liberally construed, the First Amended Petition challenges 25 Petitioner’s conviction in Los Angeles County Superior Court case 26 no. BA336601 on the grounds that the complaint and amended 27 complaint in the case were not signed by the declarant or a judge, 28 1 purportedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Brady v. 2 Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). (See First Amended Petition at 6-7). 3 On September 14, 2023, the First Amended Petition was transferred 4 to this Court.1 5 6 For the reasons explained in this Order, the First Amended 7 Petition is dismissed for failure to present a cognizable federal 8 habeas claim. 9 10 DISCUSSION 11 12 A petitioner may seek federal habeas relief from a state court 13 conviction or sentence “only on the ground that he is in custody 14 in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 15 States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); accord Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 16 216, 219 (2011) (per curiam). Matters relating solely to the 17 interpretation or application of state law generally are not 18 cognizable on federal habeas review. See Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 19 U.S. 1, 5 (2010) (“federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for 20

21 1 The initial Petition, filed on August 3, 2023, was dismissed with leave to amend because Petitioner had failed to use the proper 22 form, specify claims for relief, or pay the filing fee, among other defects. (Dkt. Nos. 1-2). In dismissing the Petition, the District 23 Court for the Southern District of California acknowledged that because Petitioner purported to challenge a Los Angeles County 24 Superior Court conviction, jurisdiction appeared more appropriate 25 in the Central District. (Dkt. No. 2 at 2). The court determined, however, that the interests of justice did not favor transfer at 26 that time due to the Petition’s various defects. (Id. at 2-3). After Petitioner subsequently paid the filing fee and filed his 27 First Amended Petition raising claims for relief, the Southern District transferred the case to this Court. (See Dkt. Nos. 3, 7). 28 1 errors of state law” (quoting Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 2 (1991))); Waddington v. Sarausad, 555 U.S. 179, 192 n.5 (2009) 3 (“[W]e have repeatedly held that ‘it is not the province of a 4 federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on 5 state-law questions.’” (quoting Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67-68)); 6 Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[A]lleged 7 errors in the application of state law are not cognizable in federal 8 habeas corpus [proceedings].”). 9 10 Here, Petitioner’s claims – that the felony complaint and 11 amended felony complaint in his state criminal case were not signed 12 by the declarant or judge (See First Amended Petition at 6-7)2 – 13 implicate, at most, only state law. See, e.g., Novarro v. Pitchess, 14 368 F.2d 803, 803–04 (9th Cir. 1966) (violation of California 15 requirement that complaint charging vehicle code violation be 16 signed by arresting officer presents no federal question); Gonzales 17 v. Allison, 2023 WL 4677026, at *5 (C.D. Cal. June 5, 2023) (“The 18 procedural requirements for filing a felony complaint in California 19 raise questions of state law that fall outside the scope of federal 20 habeas review.”), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 21 5154478 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2023); Sfera v. Herndon, 2012 WL 22 2361490, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2012) (“Even if, as Petitioner 23 contends, the felony complaint was not signed by the committing 24 judge, the discrepancy constituted, at most, a violation of state 25 2 Attached to Petitioner’s initial Petition in this case are 26 copies of a Felony Complaint for Arrest Warrant and Amended Felony Complaint, in Los Angeles County Superior Court case no. BA336601, 27 which do not contain signatures of the declarant or a judge. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 3-12). 28 1 law, which is not a basis for federal habeas relief.” (citing 2 Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67)), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 3 WL 1986090 (C.D. Cal. June 4, 2012); see also Evans v. Cain, 577 4 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he sufficiency of a state 5 indictment is not a matter for federal habeas corpus relief unless 6 it can be shown that the indictment is so defective that the 7 convicting court had no jurisdiction.” (emphasis in original)); In 8 re Cardwell, 256 F. 2d 576, 577 (9th Cir. 1957) (failure of grand 9 jury foreman to sign indictment presents no federal question; only 10 when no crime charged on face of indictment may habeas court inquire 11 into its validity). 12 13 Moreover, a habeas petitioner may not “transform a state-law 14 issue into a federal one” merely by asserting a constitutional 15 violation. Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1997); 16 see also Little v. Crawford, 449 F.3d 1075, 1083 n.6 (9th Cir. 17 2006) (“We cannot treat a mere error of state law, if one occurred, 18 as a denial of due process; otherwise, every erroneous decision by 19 a state court on state law would come here as a federal 20 constitutional question.” (citation and internal quotation marks 21 omitted)). Here, Petitioner’s reference to the Fourth Amendment is 22 unavailing. (See First Amended Petition at 6-7). There is no Fourth 23 Amendment requirement that a state criminal complaint for an arrest 24 warrant be signed, or even that the warrant itself be signed. See 25 United States v. Lyons, 740 F.3d 702, 724-25 (1st Cir. 2014) (“We 26 see nothing in the [text of the] Fourth Amendment that conditions 27 the validity of a warrant on its being signed. . . . [W]e see no 28 convincing reason to find implicit in the Fourth Amendment a 1 constitutional mandate that the magistrate who has made a probable 2 cause determination also sign the warrant.”); United States v. 3 Cruz, 774 F.3d 1278, 1285 (10th Cir. 2014) (agreeing with Lyons). 4 Brady v. Maryland, as cited by Petitioner, is also inapposite here; 5 Petitioner does not suggest any evidence was withheld from him 6 which was material to the charges against him. See Brady, 373 U.S. 7 83, 87 (1963) (holding that the prosecution violates due process 8 by withholding evidence favorable to the defense and material to 9 the defendant’s guilt or punishment). 10 11 Finally, even if unsigned criminal complaints did implicate a 12 federal constitutional right, this would merely concern the 13 legality of Petitioner’s arrest and pretrial detention, at most.3 14 According to state court filings in his case, Petitioner was 15 subsequently charged by information and then convicted and 16 sentenced after a bench trial. See People v. Amie, No. B230639, 17 18 19 3 “In California, a criminal defendant arrested and arraigned 20 on a felony complaint, . . . is entitled to a preliminary hearing 21 at which a judge ‘determine[s] whether there is probable cause to conclude that the defendant has committed the offense charged.’” 22 Tatum v. Moody, 768 F.3d 806, 818 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Galindo v. Super. Court, 50 Cal. 4th 1, 8 (2010)); see also People v. 23 Martinez, 22 Cal. 4th 750, 764 (2000) (unlike an information, a felony complaint is not “a formal accusation upon which a defendant 24 may be brought to trial in the court with jurisdiction over 25 prosecution of the offenses alleged”); see also id. at 758 (“An information is an accusatory pleading charging a felony, subscribed 26 by the district attorney, and filed in the superior court. . . . A felony complaint is a written accusatory pleading subscribed 27 under oath and filed with a magistrate.” (citing Cal. Penal Code §§ 691(c), 739, 806, 949)). 28 1 2012 WL 6218682, at *5 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2012).4 Petitioner 2 is currently in custody as a result of that conviction and sentence. 3 (See First Amended Petition at 1-2; Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 4 Inmate Locator, https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/ (last visited 5 October 18, 2023)). He cannot challenge his conviction based on 6 improprieties in connection with his pre-trial arrest or detention. 7 See Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 119 (1975) (“[I]llegal arrest 8 or detention does not void a subsequent conviction. Thus, . . . 9 although a suspect who is presently detained may challenge the 10 probable cause for that confinement, a conviction will not be 11 vacated on the ground that the defendant was detained pending trial 12 without a determination of probable cause.” (citations omitted)); 13 see also United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 474 (1980) (“An 14 illegal arrest, without more, has never been viewed as a bar to 15 subsequent prosecution, nor as a defense to a valid conviction.”); 16 Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545, 576 (1979) (“It is well settled 17 that deprivations of constitutional rights that occur before trial 18 are no bar to conviction unless there has been an impact upon the 19 trial itself. A conviction after trial . . . ‘represents a break 20 in the chain of events which has preceded it in the criminal 21 process.’” (Stewart, J., concurring) (footnote omitted) (quoting 22 Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973))). 23 24 25 26 4 The Court takes judicial notice of state court documents 27 relevant to the disposition of Petitioner’s case. See United States v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992). 28 1 ORDER 2 3 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the First Amended Petition is 4 || dismissed. 5 6 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 7 8 | DATED: October 19, 2023 9 x { te ( 10 Sasi \/ Z i” JAMES V. AELNA 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 Presented by: 14 /s/ 15 ALKA SAGAR

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28