Reed

Reed v. Koenig

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 29, 20215:21-cv-01740California2,539 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

26 This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person 27 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides: “If it plainly appears 5 from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the 6 district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the 7 petition.”

II. Analysis

9 According to the petition, Petitioner was convicted of 10 counts under Penal Code § 10 288, lewd acts with a minor child under 14. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. He was sentenced on June 11 25, 2012, to 514 years to life in state prison. Id. at 1, 9. Petitioner claims that the 12 Department of Corrections abused its authority in excluding him from early parole 13 consideration under Proposition 57 because he…

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.