Rawls #211542 v. McQuiggin

Filing 45

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 42 and DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, sdb)

R a w l s #211542 v. McQuiggin

D o c . 45

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W E S T E R N DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN N O R T H E R N DIVISION

J O H N ROBERT RAWLS, JR., P e t i t io n e r , v. G R E G MCQUIGGIN, R e sp o n d e n t. _________________________/ C A S E NO. 2:08-CV-169 H O N . ROBERT HOLMES BELL

M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER T h is matter comes before the Court on Petitioner John Robert Rawls, Jr.'s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. No. 1.) The government filed an a n sw e r to this petition on February 2, 2009. On June 30, 2010, Magistrate Judge Timothy P . Greeley issued a report and recommendation ("R&R") recommending that Petitioner's p e titio n be denied. (Dkt. No. 42.) Petitioner filed objections to the R&R on July 8, 2010. (D k t. No. 43.) This Court must review de novo those portions of the R&R to which specific o b je c ti o n has been made, and may accept, reject, or modify any or all of the Magistrate J u d g e 's findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Petitioner first objects to the determination in the R&R that his constitutional rights w e re not violated when the police searched his home pursuant to a warrant that was allegedly b a se d on false statements and thus invalid. According to Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465

Dockets.Justia.com

(1 9 7 6 ), "where the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth A m e n d m e n t claim, the Constitution does not require that a state prisoner be granted federal h a b e as corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or s e iz u re was introduced at trial." Id. at 482. The Sixth Circuit has held that the determination o f whether the state has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth A m e n d m e n t claim requires a two-pronged inquiry. Riley v. Gray, 674 F.2d 522 (6th Cir. 1 9 8 2 ). First, the district court must determine "whether the state procedural mechanism, in th e abstract, presents the opportunity to raise a fourth amendment claim." Id. at 526. S e c o n d , the district court must determine "whether presentation of the claim was in fact f ru s tra te d because of a failure of that mechanism." Id. M ic h ig a n courts clearly provide a mechanism for adjudication of Fourth Amendment e x c lu sio n a ry rule claims through motions to suppress. Indeed, Petitioner utilized this m e c h an is m when he moved to suppress the evidence resulting from the search, albeit on d if f e re n t grounds than those alleged herein regarding a false statement supporting a warrant. S e e Abdul-Mateen v. Hofbauer, No. 93-2323, 2000 WL 687653, at *4 (6th Cir. May 19, 2 0 0 0 ) ("The hearing held by the trial court is evidence that Michigan provides a procedural m e c h a n ism for addressing Petitioner's Fourth Amendment claim."). Thus, the issue is w h ethe r there was a "failure of [this] mechanism." Petitioner argues that there was a failure o f this mechanism because his counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress on a c co u n t of the allegedly false statements. The Court does not rule out the possibility that an

2

a tto rn e y's failure to take advantage of a mechanism provided by the state could constitute a f a ilu re of that mechanism. In this sense, Petitioner's Fourth Amendment claim is tied d ire c tly to his claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the fruits o f the search on the ground that the warrant was obtained by the use of false statements, a c la im to which the Court now turns. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Petitioner must demonstrate th a t counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that it p re ju d ic e d Petitioner. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Counsel's failure to m o v e to suppress evidence is not objectively unreasonable if the motion would have been f u tile . A challenge to a search warrant containing false statements will be successful only if the false statements are necessary to a finding of probable cause. United States v. Atkin, 1 0 7 F.3d 1213, 1216-17 (6th Cir. 1997) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1 9 7 8 ) and United States v. Campbell, 878 F.2d 170, 171 (6th Cir. 1989)). In this case, the a lleg e d ly false statements, contained in Section 3(E) of the warrant, were not necessary to a finding of probable cause. The remaining allegations in the warrant -- that a dead body w a s found inside the home, that a woman could be heard screaming, that the 911 call was d is c o n n e cte d , that "muffled bangs" could be heard coming from the house, and that P e titio n e r was in the house when the incident occurred -- are more than sufficient in th e m s e lv e s to support a finding that police had probable cause to obtain a warrant to search t h e home. (See Dkt. No. 1 Ex. 2.) Because a motion to suppress on the ground that the

3

w a rra n t contained false statements would have been futile, Petitioner's counsel was not inef fe ctiv e for failing to move to suppress on this basis. In addition, because Petitioner's c o u n se l was not ineffective for failing to move to suppress, there was no failure of the state m e c h an is m allowing for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim. Petitioner was g iv e n a full and fair opportunity to raise his Fourth Amendment claim in the state court. The ru le announced in Stone v. Powell bars the claim in this habeas proceeding. Accordingly, I T IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's objections to the R&R (Dkt. No. 43) a re OVERRULED. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that the R&R (Dkt. No. 42) is APPROVED and, c o m b in e d with the discussion set forth herein, ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Dkt. N o . 1) is DENIED. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DATED: July 31, 2010

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4