Rodriguez v. Wofford
Filing
7
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 03/16/15 ordering petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is summarily dismissed. This case is closed. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. CASE CLOSED. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
STEVEN R. RODRIGUEZ,
12
No. 2:14-cv-2946 CKD P
Petitioner,
13
v.
14
C. WOFFORD,
15
ORDER
Respondent.
16
17
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas
18
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee and consented to have all matters
19
in this action before a United States Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636.
20
Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court is required to conduct
21
a preliminary review of all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. The court
22
must summarily dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to
23
relief. . .” The court has conducted the review required under Rule 4.
24
Petitioner presents one ground for relief: that his convictions were obtained by the use of
25
evidence gained pursuant to an unconstitutional search and seizure. In Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S.
26
465, 482 (1976) the Supreme Court found that federal courts can only review a Fourth
27
Amendment claim raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus if state court proceedings denied
28
the petitioner an “opportunity for full and fair litigation” of the claim. From the record before the
1
1
court, it is clear petitioner had a suppression hearing, he appealed the denial of the motion to
2
suppress, and then sought review of the denial of his appeal in the California Supreme Court.
3
Nothing before the court indicates petitioner did not have a full and fair opportunity to have his
4
Fourth Amendment claim litigated in California’s courts.
5
6
Because it is plain that petitioner is barred from proceeding on his Fourth Amendment
claim in this court by Stone v. Powell, petitioner’s habeas petition must be summarily dismissed.
7
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
8
1. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is summarily dismissed;
9
2. This case is closed; and
10
3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. §
11
2253.
12
Dated: March 16, 2015
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
rodr2946.dis
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?