Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CEDRICK D. JONES, Case No.: 26-cv-3853-JO-BJW 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [DKT. 4] AND DISMISSING THE 14 WARDEN, et al., FIRST AMENDED PETITION 15 WITHOUT PREJUDICE [DKT. 3] Respondents. 16 17 Plaintiff Cedrick D. Jones is an inmate at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility 18 in San Diego, California. Proceeding pro se, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas 19 corpus under 42 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state court conviction. Dkt. 1. Following 20 the Court’s dismissal of his original petition, Petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma 21 pauperis (“IFP”) and a First Amended Petition. For the reasons stated below, the Court 22 denies Petitioner’s motion to proceed IFP [Dkt. 4] and dismisses the First Amended 23 Petition for failure to state a federal habeas claim [Dkt. 3]. 24 First, Petitioner’s motion to proceed IFP is denied because Petitioner has not 25 provided the Court with sufficient information to determine his financial status. A request 26 to proceed IFP made by a state prisoner must include a certificate from the warden or other 27 appropriate officer showing the amount of money or securities Petitioner has on account in 28 the institution. See R. 3(a)(2), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (2019); S.D. Cal. Civ. L. R. 1 3.2. Here, the prison certificate that Petitioner submitted contains no financial information. 2 Because the Court cannot determine whether he financially qualifies to proceed IFP, the 3 Court denies Petitioner’s request without prejudice [Dkt. 4]. 4 Second, the First Amended Petition fails because it is unclear whether Petitioner is 5 bringing a federal constitutional claim or merely challenging the trial court’s rulings based 6 on state law. To present a cognizable federal habeas corpus claim under § 2254, a state 7 prisoner must allege both that he is in custody pursuant to a “judgment of a State court,” 8 and that he is in custody in “violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 9 States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); see also Hernandez v. Ylst, 930 F.2d 714, 719 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 Here, the First Amended Petition alleges only that Petitioner’s due process rights were 11 denied because of a “constitutional impermissible application of statutes” and that 12 Petitioner “took a plea bargain for violating sections of California statutory code resulting 13 in imprisonment in a State prison for 17 years and $5,240.00 in monetary penalties.” Dkt. 14 3 at 6. These conclusory allegations do not identify any specific federal constitutional or 15 statutory violation rendering Petitioner’s custody unlawful. Id. Instead, the First Amended 16 Petition appears to challenge the manner in which the state court applied California 17 criminal law, which is not cognizable on federal habeas review. See Langford v. Day, 110 18 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[A]lleged errors in the application of state law are not 19 cognizable in federal habeas corpus”). Therefore, even if Petitioner had satisfied filing-fee 20 requirements, the First Amended Petition is still subject to dismissal for failure to state a 21 cognizable federal habeas claim. See R. 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (2019) (courts 22 may summarily dismiss a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the 23 petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district 24 court”). 25 For the above reasons, Petitioner’s First Amended Petition is dismissed without 26 prejudice. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this action, he must either pay the $5.00 27 filing fee or submit a properly supported application to proceed in forma pauperis and file 28 a Second Amended Petition curing the deficiencies identified above no later than October 1 30,2026. The Clerk of Court shall send a blank Southern District of California In Forma 2 || Pauperis application and a blank Southern District of California amended § 2254 petition 3 || form to Petitioner along with a copy of this Order. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 4 Dated: September 15, 2026 Hon. Jinsook Ohta 8 United States District Judge 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28