1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MATTHEW BOEMAN WILLIAMS, ) CASE NO. ED CV 20-0015-VAP (PJW) ) 11 Petitioner, ) ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS ) PETITION WITH PREJUDICE AND 12 v. ) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF ) APPEALABILITY 13 GEORGE JAIME, ) ) 14 Respondent. ) ) 15 16 In August 2011, Petitioner pled no contest in San Bernardino 17 County Superior Court to voluntary manslaughter and assault with a 18 firearm and was sentenced to 21 years in prison. (Petition at 2, 12, 19 37.1) He did not appeal. 20 In 2019, Petitioner filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to 21 California Penal Code § 1170. (Petition at 54-60.) In March 2019, 22 the Superior Court denied the petition, finding that Petitioner was 23 ineligible for resentencing. (Petition at 26.) Petitioner moved for 24 reconsideration, which the Superior Court denied. (Petition at 27-35, 25 37.) Petitioner filed an appeal, which the California Court of Appeal 26 construed as a habeas corpus petition and then summarily denied. 27 28 1 The Court uses the page numbering created automatically by the docketing system. 1 (Petition at 6, 38-41; see appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov, Case No. 2 E072808).) Petitioner sought review in the California Supreme Court, 3 which summarily denied his petition for review. (Petition at 4, 5.) 4 In January 2020, Petitioner filed the instant Petition pursuant 5 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Though he did not set forth any grounds for 6 relief (Petition at 62-64), he attached his state court petitions to 7 his federal petition. The Court presumes that by doing so he was 8 incorporating his state court claims into his federal petition. 9 The Court has a duty to screen habeas corpus petitions before 10 ordering service on a respondent. See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 11 656 (2005). In doing so, if it plainly appears from the face of a 12 petition that a petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court can 13 dismiss the petition at the outset. See Rule 4, Rules Governing 14 § 2254 Cases; and Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). 15 Petitioner contends that the Superior Court abused its discretion 16 when it concluded that he was ineligible for resentencing under 17 California Senate Bill 1437 and California Penal Code § 1170. 18 (Petition at 7-11 (Petition in California Supreme Court).) This claim 19 is not cognizable in federal habeas corpus because it is purely a 20 state law claim, i.e., the state court trial judge abused his 21 discretion under state law. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 22 (2011) (reaffirming that “federal habeas corpus relief does not lie 23 for errors of state law.”) (quotations omitted); Williams v. Borg, 139 24 F.3d 737, 740 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding federal court in state habeas 25 case may only address federal constitutional violations, not abuses of 26 discretion by a state court under state law); see also Davis v. Muñoz, 27 2019 WL 2424540, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 2, 2019) (“[W]hether Petitioner 28 2 entitled to relief under Cal. Penal Code § 1170.95 . . . is solely matter of state law.”), adopted by 2019 WL 2424107 (C.D. Cal. June 2019). Further, there is nothing Petitioner can do or say to convert his state law claim into a federal claim. For these reasons, 5 |} the Petition is dismissed with prejudice. 6 Further, because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of 7] the denial of a constitutional right or that the Court erred in its 8 procedural ruling, Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); 10 || Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 119529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 12 IT IS SO ORDERED 13 DATED: April 15, 2020 14 15 . . a . 16 lh ypncac . rl

VIRGIE FA A. PHILLIPS

17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 |} Presented by: °| Lac 9. (eed Ss

PATRICK J. WALSH

27 | UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 |] o:\waP\ECF Ready\ED20CV00015-VAP-194 MJ PJW-[PROP] ORDER DISMISSING PET.wpd