United States District Court, C.D. California
Present: The Honorable Douglas F. McCormick, United States
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
(IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause
November 26, 2019, Raymond Garcia II
("Petitioner"), a state prisoner, filed in this
Court a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in
State Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Dkt. 1
("Petition"). The Petition was accompanied by a
"Legal Brief." See Dkt. 2.
is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing within 28 days of the
service of this Order why the Petition should not be
dismissed for failure to exhaust and lack of a cognizable
Various State Court Proceedings
to public court records, in May 2013, Petitioner pleaded
guilty to one count of receiving stolen property and was
placed on three years' probation. On October 2, 2014,
Petitioner pleaded guilty to violating the terms of his
community supervision and was sentenced to 180 days in
prison. On May 1, 2015, Petitioner pleaded guilty to
violating California Penal Code § 30305(a)(1),
possession of ammunition by a prohibited person, and was
sentenced to a term of two years and eight months.
Petitioner was released, he pleaded guilty to violating the
terms of his community supervision on several occasions:
August 23, 2016 (sentenced to 60 days), May 22, 2017
(sentenced to 90 days), and September 25, 2017 (sentenced to
120 days). On October 18, 2017, Petitioner pleaded no contest
to violating California Penal Code § 186.22(a),
unlawfully and actively participating in a criminal street
gang, and was sentenced to three years of probation with 130
days in jail. On January 14, 2019, the trial court revoked
Petitioner's probation, and on March 25, 2019, reinstated
his probation and amended one probation term by increasing
Petitioner's jail sentence to 365 days with 109 days of
presentence custody credits. On October 20, 2019, Petitioner
was arrested for again violating § 186.22(a). On
December 12, Petitioner was released to state prison.
Petitioner's Grounds for Relief
Petition is mostly unintelligible. As best the Court can
decipher, Petitioner claims he is being held in custody past
his release date. Petitioner appears to suggest that his
community supervision could have been revoked only prior to
January 2018, his original maximum incarceration date.
Petitioner also makes various references to “entrapment
by estoppel” and misconduct on behalf of his Probation
present, the Petition appears to suffer from several
lack of exhaustion. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), habeas
relief may not be granted unless a petitioner has exhausted
the remedies available in state court. Exhaustion requires
that the petitioner's contentions were fairly presented
to the state courts, see Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656
F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2011), and disposed of on the merits
by the highest court of the state, see Greene v.
Lambert, 288 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2002). Moreover,
a claim has not been fairly presented unless the prisoner has
described in the state court proceedings both the operative
facts and the federal legal theory on which his claim is
based. Here, there is no indication that Petitioner presented
any of his claims to the state court.
lack of a cognizable federal claim. The writ of habeas corpus
affords relief to persons in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. It does not provide a
remedy for alleged errors in the interpretation or
application of state law. Id. Here, Petitioner
appears to argue that he should not have been given an
additional period of incarceration when he violated his
community supervision. This, however, is at most an error of
state law. The writ of habeas corpus is not available to
correct simple errors of state law. Estelle v.
McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (“[I]t is not
the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine
state-court determinations on state-law questions.”).
To justify relief, Petitioner must establish a violation of
his federal rights, which he has not done.
is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not
be dismissed for the reasons stated above by filing a written
response no later than twenty-eight (28) days after he is
served with this Order. Petitioner is advised to present
specific facts to the Court to show that he has exhausted his
claims. Petitioner is warned that his failure to timely
respond to this Order will result in ...