United States District Court, C.D. California
Presented by ALKA SAGAR UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
January 17, 2018, Rickey Alford (“Petitioner”), a
California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State
Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(“Petition”). (Docket Entry No. 1).
Petition asserts the following grounds for federal habeas
relief: (1) “Proposition 57 voted in Nov. 8, 2016,
forwarded by California Legislature 8 CDCR[.] For about six
month[s] the Governor Jerry Brown in the News Paper presented
in the New to present to the People to release people who had
non-violent crimes all attacked by CDCR 8 Cal.
Legislature[.]”; (2) “Female KKK Counselor and
staff have worked Against Alford 14th Amend. Sex
discrimination[.] Female KKK employees have attacked
petitioner who shoulld have been released July 1, 2017 when
Proposition 57 went into effect to strick enhancements[, ]
14th Amendment Sex Discrimination hate against Black
men[.]”; (3) “Fraud of the Election, 18 USC sec.
1001 inmates informed through administrative memos[.]
[T]hrough memos throughout the CDCR inmates from other prison
received some information that Prop. 57 would release
nonviolent crimes, U.S. Const 1, sec. C1, 3 bill of
attainder, ex post facto[.]”; (4) “Administrative
procedure denied or any Due Process see the memos in
circulation[.] Impeachment of the Process in the California
Legislature and CDCR see Treat, 18 U.SC sec. ___ insurrection
and rebellion Nixon v. Sirica (1972)”; and (5)
“Female employees attacking as Ku Klux Klans all Blacks
appeals in Courts and Prisons. Impeachment of females
handling Black men appeals State and Federal Courts, CDCR
appeals, obstructing every appeal either in prison or in
states or Federal Courts, racial discrimination
sexual[.]” (Petition at 5-6).
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus can only be filed by a
petitioner who is in state custody and contends that such
custody is in violation of the Constitution, laws or treaties
of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c).
claims alleged in the Petition are incomprehensible, vague
and conclusory. See Hendrix v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d
490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Summary dismissal is
appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are
‘vague [or] conclusory” or palpably incredible .
. . ‘or patently frivolous or
to the extent that Petitioner has attempted to allege
sentencing error claims, these claims only involve the
application and/or interpretation of state law and
consequently are not cognizable on federal habeas review.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Estelle v.
McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991)(reiterating that it
is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine
state court determinations on state law questions); Smith
v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 221 (1982)(“A federally
issued writ of habeas corpus, of course, reaches only
convictions obtained in violation of some provision of the
United States Constitution.”); Christian v.
Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 469 (9th Cir. 1994); Kennick v.
Superior Court, 736 F.2d 1277, 1280 (9th Cir. 1984);
see also Borroughs v. Davis, 2015 WL 3867928, *5
(petitioner's claim challenging the denial of his
petitions/motion to recall and reduce his sentence under
Proposition 36 was not cognizable on federal habeas review).
Similarly, Petitioner's attempt to characterize his claim
concerning release under Proposition 57 as a federal
constitutional claim (see Petition at 5-6) is not
sufficient to render it cognizable. See e.g.,
Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1997)
(“[The petitioner] may not . . . transform a state law
issue into a federal one merely by asserting a violation of
due process'”); Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes,
37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir. 1995); Hendricks v.
Zenon, 993 F.2d 664, 674 (9th Cir. 1993).
addition, Petitioner has failed to allege any claim(s), much
less any the claims which go to the fact or duration of his
confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,
since Petitioner has failed to name the proper respondent,
the name of the state officer having custody over Petitioner
(i.e., prison warden), see Stanley v. California Supreme
Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1984); Rule 2(a),
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
Supreme Court, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the
Petition. See Smith v. Idaho, 392 F.3d 350, 352-55
(9th Cir. 2004).
Petitioner does not state a claim for relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254, dismissal of the Petition is warranted.
IT IS ORDERED that the Petition be ...