Lopez v. Diaz
- Susan Illston
- 3:20-cv-00572
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Lopez v. Diaz, Judge Illman dismissed Lopez’s habeas petition with leave to amend because it challenged state sentencing law, not a federal habeas issue.
Joel V. Lopez’s federal habeas petition was dismissed with leave to amend; Ralph Diaz was the named defendant.
What happened
Joel V. Lopez v. Ralph Diaz involved a petition from a California prisoner seeking federal review of his sentence. Lopez argued that refusing to apply Senate Bill 620 violated his Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection rights.
Lopez was convicted and sentenced in 2014 and did not appeal. After Senate Bill 620 took effect in 2018, he asked California courts to reduce his sentence because the law allowed courts to strike or dismiss certain firearm enhancements. The state courts denied that request.
The federal court ruled that Lopez’s claim concerned the application of California sentencing law and therefore was not a federal habeas claim, despite his constitutional wording. Judge Robert M. Illman granted Lopez’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissed the petition with leave to amend within 28 days.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. Diaz · No. 3:20-cv-00572
- Susan Illston
- Mar. 30, 2020
Background
Joel V. Lopez, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The opinion states that Lopez was convicted and sentenced in Monterey County in March 2014 and did not file an appeal. He later sought relief in state court under California Senate Bill 620.
Senate Bill 620 amended California Penal Code § 12022.53 to allow trial courts, at sentencing, to strike or dismiss certain firearm enhancements. The law was approved on October 11, 2017, and became effective on January 1, 2018. Lopez asked the state courts to reduce his sentence under the law, but those courts denied relief because his judgment had become final several years before the law was enacted.
Claim and Analysis
Lopez argued that the denial of resentencing violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court held that the claim was based only on the application of California’s sentencing laws. A federal habeas court may grant relief to a state prisoner only for custody violating the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. The court explained that a state court’s alleged mistake in applying its own sentencing law generally does not create a federal habeas claim absent fundamental unfairness. Simply describing the state-law issue as a constitutional violation was not enough.
The court also stated that it was bound by the state court’s interpretation of state sentencing law and concluded that Lopez’s challenge to the application of Senate Bill 620 did not present a viable federal habeas claim.
Disposition
The court granted Lopez’s motion to proceed without paying the filing fee. It dismissed the petition with leave to amend. The amended petition had to be filed within 28 days after service of the order and had to identify itself as an “AMENDED PETITION” on its first page. The order stated that failure to amend within that period would result in dismissal of the petition. It also required Lopez to keep the court informed of address changes and comply with court orders in a timely manner.
The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.