(HC) Perez v. Parker

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LISA PEREZ, formerly known as LISA No. 2:25-cv-2702 CSK P BELYEW, 12 Petitioner, 13 ORDER AND FINDINGS & v. RECOMMENDATIONS 14 LAVELLE PARKER, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 20 Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford 21 the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 22 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 23 As set forth below, it is recommended that this case be summarily dismissed. 24 I. THE PETITION 25 Petitioner challenges her October 2018 conviction in the Butte County Superior Court, 26 Case No. C-091761. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner claims she is being denied the mental health credits 27 she alleges she is entitled to under new legislation, citing California SB 317 and California Penal 28 Code § 4019. (ECF No. 1 at 5-6, 16.) 1 II. GOVERNING STANDARDS 2 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 Cases, 3 the court must review all petitions for writ of habeas corpus and summarily dismiss any petition if 4 it is plain that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. Federal courts retain broad powers to control 5 their dockets and to “prevent duplicative or unnecessary litigation.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 6 473, 478 (2000). 7 III. DISCUSSION 8 The instant petition should be summarily dismissed for the following reasons. First, the 9 present application is second or successive as it challenges the same state court judgment 10 challenged in an earlier petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b); see also Magwood v. Peterson, 561 11 U.S. 320, 332 (2010). Where a petitioner’s claims are second or successive, the petitioner must 12 obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit before filing a petition. See Magwood, 561 U.S. at 331; see 13 also Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007). Court records confirm that petitioner 14 previously sought habeas relief challenging her 2018 conviction in Perez v. Pallares, No. 2:19-cv- 15 0294 DAD AC (E.D. Cal.), which was denied on September 10, 2025.1 Because the petition is 16 second or successive, it should be dismissed without prejudice. 17 Second, petitioner’s claim also fails on the merits, for the same reasons her similar claims 18 regarding sentencing credits were dismissed in her subsequently-filed habeas petition: 19 Errors of state law do not come within the scope of federal habeas jurisdiction, Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. [62, 67 (1991)], and 20 sentencing is a quintessentially state law matter that is not reviewable in federal habeas. See Miller v. Vasquez, 868 F.2d 1116, 1118-19 21 (9th Cir. 1989) (question of state sentencing law are not cognizable in federal habeas). Petitioner cannot transform her state law issues 22 into federal ones merely by invoking the federal constitution. See Langford [v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380 (9th Cir. 1997)]. 23 Perez v. Parker, No. 2:24-cv-3285 DJC SCR, 2025 WL 2961909, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2025) 24 (citing 2:19-cv-0294 ECF No. 77 at 38). Thus, even if the petitioner is not second or successive, 25 26 1 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See, e.g., Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 27 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to 28 matters at issue”) (internal quotation omitted). 1 | her petition should be summarily dismissed. 2 | IV. CONCLUSION 3 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court 4 || shall (1) assign a district judge to this case; (2) the Clerk is directed to serve a copy of the petition 5 || filed in this case together with a copy of these findings and recommendations on the Attorney 6 || General of the State of California. 7 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus 8 || be dismissed, and the Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 11 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 12 || objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 13 || Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In the objections petitioner may address whether a 14 | certificate of appealability should issue in the event she files an appeal of the judgment in this 15 || case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or 16 || deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). A 17 || certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a 18 || substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). Petitioner is 19 || advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 20 | District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 Dated: March 9, 2026 5 4 Cin Spo 23 CHI SOO KIM 24 /tipere2702.156.summ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28