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