Castro v. Lizarraga et al

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 7/25/2016. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2016)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL JOE CASTRO,

Case No. 14-cv-04284-VC

Petitioner,
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

v.
JOE A. LIZARRAGA, et al.,
Respondents.

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. The California Court of Appeal's
decision was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal
law as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). The Miranda
warnings given here were sufficient to "reasonably convey to [Castro] his rights as required by
Miranda," Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 203 (1989) – as evidenced by the fact that Castro
actually invoked his rights under Miranda. More to the point, for federal habeas purposes, a
fairminded jurist could easily conclude that this was so. See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86,
102 (2011). Likewise, consistent with the plurality opinion in Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S.
1039, 1045-46 (1983), the California Court of Appeal reasonably concluded that the police
officer did not continue interrogating Castro (by asking routine booking-related questions) after
Castro invoked his right to counsel, and that Castro instead reinitiated discussion of the case. See
Kemp v. Ryan, 638 F.3d 1245, 1256 (9th Cir. 2011). Nor is there any basis to conclude that
Castro's statement was involuntary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 25, 2016

______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

2