Stuckey v. Robertson

Background

The Ninth Circuit transferred Stuckey’s application concerning a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to the Northern District of California. The transferred matter was treated as a petition challenging the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s denial of his request to restore good-conduct credits. The Ninth Circuit had denied authorization for a claim concerning ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, but said authorization was unnecessary for the custody-credit challenge because Stuckey had not previously filed a § 2254 petition challenging that decision. It expressed no opinion on the merits or on procedural requirements.

The court’s footnote states that Kathleen Allison had been substituted as respondent because Stuckey was participating in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Male Community Reentry Program.

Claim and Motion

Stuckey alleged that prison officials violated California Penal Code § 2932(a)(4) by taking more than 30 days of credit for each of ten disciplinary violations occurring from January 2012 through August 2015. He asserted that the violations should have resulted in a total loss of 300 days of credit. He also described the alleged credit deductions as violating the Fourteenth Amendment.

Allison moved to dismiss for failure to state a federal claim. In the alternative, she argued that the petition was procedurally defaulted, unexhausted, and untimely. Stuckey did not file an opposition, although the court had given him an opportunity to do so.

Court’s Reasoning

A state prisoner may obtain federal habeas relief only for custody that violates the federal Constitution, federal law, or a treaty. The court explained that an alleged error of state law is not grounds for federal habeas relief, even if state law was interpreted or applied incorrectly. A petitioner also cannot turn a state-law issue into a federal claim simply by asserting a due-process violation.

The court concluded that Stuckey’s claim expressly relied on prison officials’ alleged failure to follow California Penal Code § 2932(a)(4). Because the claim concerned an alleged violation of state law, and the due-process assertion did not change its nature, the petition did not state a cognizable federal habeas claim.

Disposition

The court granted Allison’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed the action for failure to state a cognizable claim, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, terminated the pending motions, and closed the file.