McCowan v. Johnson

Background

Raymond B. McCowan, an incarcerated person proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his California convictions and sentences. The court described a 2013 San Mateo County sentence of 36 years to life, which ran concurrently with a 2012 sentence. McCowan previously filed a federal habeas case challenging the 2013 conviction and related sentence; that earlier case was denied on the merits, and the Ninth Circuit later denied a certificate of appealability.

McCowan later sought resentencing or sentence modification under Proposition 57. California state courts denied his requests. In this case, he argued that his sentence was disproportionate to his crime, that the denial of Proposition 57 resentencing violated the Eighth Amendment, that his detention violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, and that the state courts failed to properly address his habeas claims.

Court’s analysis

The court treated McCowan’s proportionality challenge to his 36-years-to-life sentence as a second or successive habeas claim. Because the factual basis for the claim was known when he filed his earlier federal habeas case, and because he had not obtained authorization from the Ninth Circuit to file another petition, the district court said it lacked power to consider that claim. It dismissed that claim as second or successive, without prejudice to refiling if McCowan obtains the required Ninth Circuit authorization.

The court denied the claim concerning the denial of Proposition 57 relief for lack of federal habeas jurisdiction. It explained that Proposition 57 concerns eligibility for parole consideration rather than automatic resentencing or immediate release. The court also stated that an alleged error in applying Proposition 57 is a state-law issue, not a basis for federal habeas relief. Because a favorable ruling would provide only a parole hearing and would not necessarily result in earlier release, the court said a challenge to denial of a Proposition 57 parole hearing could potentially be brought in a separate civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The court separately rejected McCowan’s due-process and equal-protection theories on the merits. It held that the alleged sentencing error and the state courts’ alleged failure to apply state-law procedures did not become federal due-process claims merely because McCowan characterized them that way. It also held that the Equal Protection Clause does not guarantee uniformity in judicial decisions or immunity from judicial error.

Disposition

The court granted McCowan leave to proceed without paying filing fees. It dismissed the habeas petition for lack of federal habeas jurisdiction and because it was second or successive, denied a certificate of appealability, directed the clerk to substitute current custodian Pat Horn as respondent, entered judgment for respondent, and closed the case. The order’s discussion states that the petition was dismissed with prejudice, while its specific ruling on the proportionality claim and its final paragraph expressly describe limited relief without prejudice: authorization could permit refiling of that claim, and a separate civil-rights action could potentially challenge denial of a Proposition 57 parole hearing.