United States District Court, N.D. California
November 4, 2005.
COREY COLEMAN GRAY, Petitioner,
Sheriff A. CRAVER; et al., Respondents.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Corey Coleman Gray, a prisoner incarcerated at the Folsom State
Prison in Represa, California, has filed a pro se petition for
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Gray's
petition challenges the Mendocino County Superior Court's failure
to grant relief on his habeas petition challenging the revocation
of parole.*fn1 His petition is now before the court for
review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases. His in forma pauperis application
also is before the court for consideration.
The petition must be dismissed because an error in the state
habeas petition process is not addressable through federal habeas
corpus proceedings. See Ortiz v. Stewart, 149 F.3d 923, 939
(9th Cir. 1998); Gerlaugh v. Stewart, 129 F.3d 1027, 1045 (9th
Cir. 1997); Villafuerte v. Stewart, 111 F.3d 616, 632 n. 7 (9th
Cir. 1997); Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir.),
cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1012 (1989). Such errors do not
generally represent an attack on the prisoner's detention and
therefore are not proper grounds for habeas relief. See id.
They instead generally pertain to the review process itself and not to the decision that
caused him to be in custody. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 2254(i)
(claims of ineffective assistance of state or federal
post-conviction counsel not cognizable on federal habeas review).
Gray is in custody because his parole was revoked. He can and has
challenged that parole revocation decision. See fn. 1, supra.
However, he cannot pursue a separate challenge to the state
habeas review of the parole revocation decision. Summary
dismissal of a federal habeas petition is appropriate only where
the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably
incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v.
Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). Gray's challenge to
the Mendocino County Superior Court's habeas decision is patently
frivolous as it has no legal merit at all.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for writ of habeas
corpus is dismissed with prejudice. The in forma pauperis
application is GRANTED. (Docket # 3.) The clerk shall close the
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.