Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. (Order filed August 30, 2007.)*fn2
On December 17, 2007, petitioner filed a document entitled "Petitioner's Motion/Request Supplemental Traverse to Consolidate Pending Appeal/Case No. SF086979A;
Under Local Rule 11-110." (Id.)*fn3 On June 11, 2008, petitioner filed amended exhibits to his motion to consolidate. (Id.) On September 8, 2008, petitioner filed a motion for emergency release, claiming his term of confinement has not been properly credited with good time credits earned.
While not entirely clear, it appears petitioner is attempting to challenge the duration of his confinement for two separate probation violations. However, the instant petition is a substantive challenge to petitioner's underlying convictions. In the February 21, 2007 amended petition, petitioner claimed the state court committed reversible error when it allowed petitioner to represent himself.
Petitioner is attempting to add claims concerning the application of good time credits to his sentence. However, these claims are grounded in state law. A writ of habeas corpus is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only on the basis of some transgression of federal law binding on the state courts. Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985), Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 1983). It is unavailable for alleged error in the interpretation or application of state law. Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d at 1085; see also, Lincoln v. Sunn, 807 F.2d 805, 814 (9th Cir. 1987); Givens v. Housewright, 786 F.2d 1378, 1381 (9th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, petitioner's motions should be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to substitute Warden Nick Dawson as respondent in place of K. Mendoza-Powers.
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to remove the assignment of Judge Mendez from this case and annotate the docket to reflect the parties' consent to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Magistrate Judge.
3. Petitioner's December 17, 2007 motion (docket no. 25) is denied; and
4. Petitioner's September 8, 2008 request (docket no. ...