Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 28, 2024

Collins v. Warden

Judge
Jeffrey White
Docket
4:24-cv-06569
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
HabeasPro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Collins v. Warden, Judge White dismissed Collins’s habeas petition because it relied only on alleged violations of California law.

Who this affects

Michael E. Collins’s federal habeas petition was dismissed, while his application to proceed without paying filing fees was granted. The case was closed.

What happened

In Collins v. Warden, Michael E. Collins, a California prisoner representing himself, sought immediate release through a federal petition challenging his state-court confinement.

Collins had been convicted in Alameda County Superior Court of murder with use of a deadly weapon and sentenced to 27 years to life. The California Court of Appeal reversed enhancements for prior prison terms, and California courts denied his later requests for habeas relief.

Judge Jeffrey White dismissed the petition because all three claims relied only on California law, which cannot support federal habeas relief. The court granted Collins’s request to proceed without paying filing fees, directed the clerk to enter judgment, and closed the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Collins v. Warden · No. 4:24-cv-06569
Judge
Jeffrey White
Date
Oct. 28, 2024

Background

Michael E. Collins, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking immediate release from confinement. He was convicted in Alameda County Superior Court of murder with use of a deadly weapon and received a sentence of 27 years to life in state prison, including enhancements for prior prison terms. The California Court of Appeal reversed the enhancements, the California Supreme Court denied review, and state courts denied Collins’s habeas petitions.

Claims and Analysis

Collins asserted three claims based on California Penal Code sections 1170.91, 1170.3, and 1170(b). The court explained that federal habeas relief under § 2254 is unavailable for violations of state law or alleged errors in interpreting or applying state law. Because Collins sought relief solely on the basis of state law, the claims were not cognizable in federal habeas proceedings.

Disposition

The court dismissed the petition for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. The court granted Collins’s application to proceed without paying filing fees because he lacked funds. It directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the file.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.