Valdovinos v. Macomber

Background

Felix Valdovinos, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He was found guilty of first-degree murder in 1999. In 2023, he asked the Santa Clara County Superior Court to resentence him and invalidate certain restitution fines based on new state laws. That court denied relief for failure to state a prima facie case, except that it vacated a $140.50 restitution fee and issued an amended abstract of judgment. The California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court denied his further petitions.

The court had previously dismissed Valdovinos's original federal petition but allowed him to amend it. The amended petition repeated the same allegations and claims.

Court's Analysis

Federal habeas relief under § 2254 is available only to a person who is “in custody” when the petition is filed. The court treated that requirement as jurisdictional, meaning that without it the court lacks power to decide the claim. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, the court explained that a challenge to a restitution order or fine is not a challenge to the execution, validity, or duration of a custodial sentence. Valdovinos's claims concerned only restitution and fines, and he did not raise or exhaust any claim about the validity or duration of his confinement. The court therefore concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over those claims.

The court also stated that federal habeas relief is not available for violations of state law. In addition, it held that Valdovinos's allegation that he was denied counsel did not state a federal claim because there is no federal constitutional right to a lawyer in state post-conviction proceedings. The amended petition did not address the problems identified in the earlier dismissal.

Disposition

Judge James Donato dismissed the petition without leave to amend. The court also denied a Certificate of Appealability and directed the clerk to close the case.