Clement v. Taylor

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION re: 16 . Signed by CHIEF JUDGE J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT on 4/3/2017. (afc) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive elect ronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications will be served by first class mail on April 4, 2017.

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII MATTHEW CLEMENT, #A0253074, ) ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) JOSEPH TAYLOR, ) ) Respondent. ) _____________________________ ) Civ. No. 16-00351 JMS-KJM ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Findings and Recommendation have been filed and served on all parties on March 2, 2017, and no objections have been filed by any party. The Findings and Recommendation address, among other things, the merits of Petitioner Matthew Clement’s (“Petitioner”) argument that the state circuit court violated his Fourth Amendment rights (see Section III.A.). Pursuant to Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494 (1976), the court is barred from considering a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Fourth Amendment claim if the Petitioner had a “full and fair opportunity” to litigate that claim in state court. See Newman v. Wengler, 790 F.3d 876, 880 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that Stone remains good law and reaffirming that “[t]he relevant inquiry is whether petitioner had the opportunity to litigate his [Fourth Amendment] claim, not whether he did in fact do so or even whether the claim was correctly decided”) (quoting Ortiz Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir. 1996)). And it appears that Petitioner did in fact litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court. With this clarification, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 74.2, the “Findings and Recommendation That Matthew Clement’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition Be Denied,” ECF No. 16, are adopted as the opinion and order of this Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, April 3, 2017. /s/ J. Michael Seabright J. Michael Seabright Chief United States District Judge Clement v. Taylor, Civ. No. 16-00351 JMS-KJM, Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation 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?