Chu v. San Francisco County Superior Court
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:19-cv-04218
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Chu v. San Francisco County Superior Court, Judge Hamilton allowed an amended petition but dismissed it and denied permission to appeal.
Richard H. Chu’s amended petition was dismissed, the certificate of appealability was denied, and the case was closed. The court stated that Chu may file a new petition if he exhausts a proper federal claim. San Francisco County Superior Court was the named respondent.
What happened
In Chu v. San Francisco County Superior Court, Richard H. Chu, a California prisoner representing himself, asked a federal court to review his state custody and apply California’s Proposition 57. He also sought a parole-eligibility date.
The court said federal relief cannot be based only on an alleged violation of state law. It also said any possible federal claim appeared not to have been presented to California’s highest court, as required before federal review.
Judge Hamilton granted the motion to amend, dismissed the petition, denied a certificate of appealability, and directed the clerk to close the case. The court said Chu may file a new petition if he exhausts a proper federal claim.
The detailed version
- Chu v. San Francisco County Superior Court · No. 4:19-cv-04218
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 2, 2019
Background
Richard H. Chu, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal review of his state custody. The court had dismissed his original petition but allowed him to amend it. Chu then filed an amended petition.
Claims and Analysis
Chu sought review under California’s Proposition 57 and asked that a parole-eligibility date be set. The court explained that federal habeas relief is available only when a state prisoner is held in violation of the U.S. Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. To the extent Chu alleged only violations of California law or complained that no parole-eligibility date had been set, the court dismissed those claims because federal habeas relief is not available for state-law errors.
The court had also instructed Chu to identify which claims he had exhausted in state court. Exhaustion generally requires presenting a federal claim to the California Supreme Court before seeking federal review. Chu did not address exhaustion in his amended petition. The court stated that any possible federal claim appeared to be unexhausted.
Disposition
The court granted the motion to amend and considered the amended petition. It dismissed the petition for the reasons stated above. The court denied a certificate of appealability, which is the permission required to appeal the denial of a federal habeas petition, because it concluded that reasonable jurists would not find the result debatable. The clerk was directed to close the case. The court stated that Chu may file a new petition if he exhausts a proper federal claim.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.