Kenneth Lewis v. RJD
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 1 discussed in this Court’s previous orders, federal habeas relief is not available for 2 || alleged
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Kenneth Lewis filed a Request for Recall of Sentence pursuant to California state law in a federal habeas corpus case that had already been dismissed. The court denied the request, holding that federal habeas relief is not available for alleged errors of state sentencing law, and ordered the case to remain closed.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Request for Recall of Sentence (ECF No. 10) denied“Thus, Petitioner’s Request for Recall of Sentence (ECF No. 10) is DENIED, and the case remains closed.” | agree with court The court correctly applies the principle that federal habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is not a vehicle for challenging state sentencing laws or seeking resentencing based on state statutory amendments. The petition was previously dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim and exhaustion, and the new request does not cure these fundamental jurisdictional and substantive defects. The reliance on Lewis v. Jeffers supports the conclusion that the claim is not cognizable in federal habeas. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sound. It correctly identifies that the petitioner is attempting to use a federal habeas petition to obtain relief based solely on state law (California AB 600 and Penal Code § 1172.1). The court cites the controlling Supreme Court precedent (Lewis v. Jeffers) and a persuasive district court case (Cummings) to establish that such claims are not cognizable in federal court. The procedural history confirms the case was already dismissed for similar reasons, making the denial of the new request consistent and appropriate.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH LEWIS, Case No.: 25-CV-2209 JLS (VET)
12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 13 v. RECALL OF SENTENCE 14 RJD, 15 Respondent. (ECF No. 10) 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is Petitioner Kenneth Lewis’s Request for Recall of 19 Sentence (“Request,” ECF No. 10). On October 14, 2025, the Court dismissed Petitioner’s 20 First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as 21 he failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement, state a cognizable claim, or allege exhaustion 22 of state judicial remedies. ECF Nos. 5, 6. Although the Court declined to grant Petitioner 23 further leave to amend, he nonetheless filed a Second Amended Petition on November 13, 24 2025. ECF No. 8. The Court declined to reopen the case because the Second Amended 25 Petition failed to cure the deficiencies outlined in the Court’s previous dismissal order. 26 ECF No. 9. The Court also declined to grant a certificate of appealability. Id. 27 On December 22, 2025, Petition filed the present Request for Recall of Sentence 28 pursuant to California Assembly Bill 600 and California Penal Code § 1172.1. See Docket. 1 discussed in this Court’s previous orders, federal habeas relief is not available for 2 || alleged errors of state sentencing law. See Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990); see 3 ||also Cummings v. CDCR, No. 22-cv-23 (PA) AFM, 2022 WL 1063754, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 4 ||Apr. 5, 2022) (collecting cases explaining “claims alleging entitlement to resentencing 5 |/under various amendments to the California Penal Code are not cognizable”). Thus, 6 || Petitioner’s Request for Recall of Sentence (ECF No. 10) is DENIED, and the case remains 7 ||closed. No further filings will be considered in this closed case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: June 2, 2026 . tt 10 ja Janis L. Sammartino 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28