Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Kory Darty, a California state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on February 4, 2025. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c)(17). On July 18, 2025, the magistrate judge ordered Darty to show cause in writing why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. Darty responded on July 31, 2025.
On September 12, 2025, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of the habeas action. The magistrate judge concluded that Darty's claim challenging the denial of his petition for re-sentencing under California Penal Code § 1172.6 did not present a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. The magistrate judge further concluded that any claim Darty might be attempting to present challenging his underlying state court conviction was an unauthorized second or successive petition, given that his prior habeas challenge to that conviction had been rejected by the Ninth Circuit.
The findings and recommendations were served on Darty at his address of record with notice that objections were due within fourteen days. On October 3, 2025, Darty filed objections in which he argued that his challenge to the denial of his § 1172.6 re-sentencing petition presented a denial of due process claim that is cognizable on federal habeas.
The Court’s Holding
The district court conducted a de novo review of the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and concluded that the findings and recommendations were supported by the record and by proper analysis. The court found Darty's objection—that his § 1172.6 claim presented a cognizable due process issue—unpersuasive, citing Jackson v. Borla for the principle that a federal habeas petitioner may not transform a state-law issue into a federal one merely by labeling it a due process claim or making a general appeal to constitutional guarantees.
The court adopted the findings and recommendations in full, dismissed the petition without leave to amend and without prejudice, and directed the Clerk of the Court to close the case. The dismissal without prejudice reflects the procedural nature of the ruling, as the claims were found non-cognizable or unauthorized rather than adjudicated on the merits.
The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Applying the standard from Slack v. McDaniel, the court concluded that reasonable jurists would not find the dismissal of the petition without prejudice to be debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further.
Key Takeaways
- A state prisoner's challenge to the denial of re-sentencing under California Penal Code § 1172.6 does not present a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief because it is fundamentally a state-law issue.
- Labeling a state-law claim as a due process violation or making a general appeal to constitutional guarantees is insufficient to transform it into a federal claim cognizable on habeas review.
- A habeas petition challenging a state conviction that has already been the subject of a prior federal habeas petition rejected by the Ninth Circuit constitutes an unauthorized second or successive petition.
- The district court dismissed the petition without prejudice and without leave to amend, adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in full, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
- Under the Slack v. McDaniel standard, a certificate of appealability was denied because reasonable jurists would not find the procedural dismissal debatable or deserving of further proceedings.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces the established principle that federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is not available for claims that rest solely on state-law grounds, even when a petitioner attempts to recast them as due process violations. California Penal Code § 1172.6, which codified changes to state law allowing prisoners to seek vacatur of convictions under certain circumstances, creates rights under state law that do not automatically translate into federal constitutional claims.
The decision also underscores the procedural barriers facing state prisoners who seek to bring successive habeas petitions. Without authorization from the appropriate court of appeals, a second or successive petition challenging the same conviction is subject to dismissal. The denial of a certificate of appealability further limits the petitioner's ability to obtain appellate review of the dismissal.