Lucas Noel Defrantze v. John McGinness

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUCAS NOEL DEFRANTZE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOHN MCGINNESS,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-15407
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01984-JAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Lucas Noel DeFrantze appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition for
failure to state a cognizable federal claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
OCT 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-15407 2
In his habeas petition, DeFrantze alleges that the state court’s dismissal of
his appeal challenging a civil preliminary injunction based on his failure to comply
with a state court procedural rule violated his due process rights. This claim is not
cognizable on federal habeas review because DeFrantze is not challenging his
conviction or sentence and he relies on a purported error of state law. See 28
U.S.C. § 2254(a); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). Therefore, the
district court properly dismissed DeFrantze’s habeas petition for failure to state a
federally cognizable claim.
We deny DeFrantze’s requests for leave to enlarge the court record and for
appointment of counsel.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --