Royal

Royal v. Koenig

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 28, 20213:21-cv-01388California660 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTIN DEMMENT ROYAL, Case No. 21-cv-01388-VC (PR)

Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSNG ONE CLAIM

WITH PREJUDICE AND ISSUING

v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ON ONE

CLAIM

CRAIG KOENIG,

Respondent.

Martin Demment Royal is a state prisoner filing a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the state courts’ denial of his petition for resentencing under California Penal Code section 1170.91. He has paid the $5.00 filing fee. Royal asserts two claims: (1) the trial court was biased toward him because he had been convicted of sexual offenses; and (2) he made a sufficient showing for qualifying for resentencing under section 1170.91. Royal’s claim based on California Penal Code section 1170.91 must be dismissed because it is a state law claim over which this court has no jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (federal habeas corpus is limited to deciding whether conviction violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States); see also Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62-67-68 (1991) (federal habeas relief not available for errors of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.