Juan Carlos Uitz v. People

I.

INTRODUCTION

On December 17, 2020, Petitioner Juan Carlos Uitz (“Uitz”), an inmate at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, constructively filed1 a pro se “Petition to Strike Restitution” (“Petition”). ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1 at 1. The Court construes Uitz’s Petition as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Section 2254”). Uitz challenges the restitution fine imposed as part of his conviction and sentence in Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. GA057386, and asks the Court for “a restitution reduction to the minimum payment of $200[.]” Id. at 1, 5, 9. As discussed below, the Court orders Uitz to show cause why the Petition should not be summarily dismissed for failure to state a cognizable habeas claim.

II.

DISCUSSION

A. Applicable Law

Under Section 2254, “a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the

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…