Derrick L. Johnson v. Superior Court of The State of California, et al.

Filing 5

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY by Judge George H. Wu. IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) the Petition is dismissed with prejudice; and (2) a certificate of appealability is denied. (See order for details). Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (hr)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
10

DERRICK L. JOHNSON,

11

Petitioner,

12
13

v.
SUPERIOR COURT, etc., et al.,

14

Respondents.

15

18

Petition should be dismissed with prejudice.
PETITIONER’S CLAIM
Petitioner claims that he was subject to an illegal search and seizure in violation of the

20

22
23
24

Fourth Amendment. (Petition at 1.) Specifically, Petitioner alleges that on August 4, 2015, he
was arrested pursuant to an invalid arrest warrant. (Id. at 1-2.) On December 9, 2015,
Petitioner was sentenced to a term of four years in state prison. (Id. at 2.) Petitioner seeks
release from state prison and other remedies. (Id. at 2-3.)
DISCUSSION

25
26
27
28

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). For the reasons set forth below, the

19

21

Case No. CV 18-1741-GW (JEM)

On February 23, 2018, Derrick L. Johnson (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

I.

Duty to Screen
This Court has a duty to screen habeas corpus petitions. See Rules Governing § 2254

Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes. Rule 4 requires
a district court to examine a habeas corpus petition, and if it plainly appears from the face of

1

the petition and any annexed exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the judge shall

2

make an order for summary dismissal of the petition. Id.; see also Local Rule 72-3.2.

3

II.

Petitioner Has Failed to State a Cognizable Habeas Claim

4

Petitioner claims that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when he was arrested

5

pursuant to an invalid warrant. (Petition at 1-2.) In Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494 (1975),

6

the United States Supreme Court held that “where the State has provided an opportunity for

7

full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal

8

habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or

9

seizure was introduced at his trial.” In other words, “[a] Fourth Amendment claim is not

10

cognizable in federal habeas proceedings if a petitioner has had a full and fair opportunity to

11

litigate the claim in state court.” Ortiz–Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir.1996).

12

“The relevant inquiry is whether petitioner had the opportunity to litigate his claim, not whether

13

he did in fact do so or even whether the claim was correctly decided.” Id.

14

California provides criminal defendants with a full and fair opportunity to litigate their

15

Fourth Amendment claims by filing motions to suppress under Cal. Penal Code § 1385.5.

16

See Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 613-14 (9th Cir. 1990). Whether Petitioner brought such

17

a motion is irrelevant. Because California provided him with a full and fair opportunity to do so,

18

he cannot now litigate the issue in a federal habeas proceeding. The doctrine of Stone v.

19

Powell bars his Fourth Amendment claim.

20

III.

A Certificate of Appealability Is Denied

21

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, the Court “must issue

22

or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” For

23

the aforementioned reasons, the Court concludes that Petitioner has not made a substantial

24

showing of the denial of a constitutional right, as is required to support the issuance of a

25

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Accordingly, a certificate of

26

appealability is denied.

27
28
2

1

ORDER

2

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) the Petition is dismissed with

3

prejudice; and (2) a certificate of appealability is denied.

4
5
6

DATED: March 28, 2018
GEORGE H. WU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3