Tracye Benard Washington v. Stu Sherman
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
I.
INTRODUCTION
On April 13, 2020, Petitioner Tracye Benard Washington (“Petitioner”), an inmate at Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison (“SATF”) in Corcoran, California, constructively filed1 a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Section 2254”). See Dkt. 1, Pet. Petitioner challenges the $20,000 restitution fine imposed as part of his December 13, 2002 sentence. Id. Petitioner argues, based on a recent change in California case law, the failure to hold an “ability to pay determination hearing” before ordering restitution violated his due process rights. Id. As discussed below, the Court orders Petitioner to show cause why the Petition should not be summarily dismissed for failure to state a cognizable habeas claim.
/// /// /// /// ///
Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se prisoner gives prison authorities a pleading to mail to court, the court deems the pleading constructively “filed” on the date it is signed. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 770 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).