Siers et al v. Young et al

Filing 41

ORDER denying 23 Objection to Report and Recommendation.; granting 7 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 8 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 13 Motion to Dismiss; adopting 21 Report and Recommendation; denying 22 Objection to Report and Recommendation; dismissing 1 Petition; declining to issue Certificate of Appealability. Signed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol on 6/10/2014. (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FILED

DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA

JUN 10 2014

SOUTHERN DIVISION

~~

***************************************************
*
DONOVAN CRAIG SIERS,
CIV. 14-4007
*
*
Petitioner,
*
*
vs.
ORDER
*
*
ROBERT DOOLEY, Warden;
*
DARIN YOUNG, Warden; and
*
MARTY JACKLEY, Attorney General,
*
State of South Dakota,
*
*
Respondents.
*

*

***************************************************

Magistrate Judge Simko filed his Report and Recommendation in this case on April 3, 2014.
Donovan Siers filed timely objections on April 14, 2014 (Doc. 22) and April 15, 2014 (Doc. 23), and
after that continued to file other pleadings in this case. Nothing filed by Petitioner Siers discloses
authority contrary to the contents 0 f the Report and Recommendation from Judge Simko. The fact
is that for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation the Writ of Habeas Corpus by
Donovan Siers is time barred in Federal Court.

Even if28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas claims were not time barred, they are barred by the doctrine
of Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465,96 S.Ct. 3037,49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976), which case provides that
where a state has provided for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner
may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the grounds that the evidence was obtained
through an unconstitutional search and seizure. Cody v. Solem, 755 F.2d 1323 (8th Cir. 1985).

The State of South Dakota has provided full and fair litigation of Petitioner Siers' Fourth
Amendment claim as the claims ofDonovan Siers are now pending before the South Dakota Supreme
Court. Mr. Siers' claim, as put forth by his lawyer, is primarily that the case of Missouri v. McNeely,
133 S.Ct. 1552, 185 L.Ed.2d 696, (2013) should be applied retroactively. Due to the fact that the

case before this Court by Petitioner Siers is time barred this Court expresses no opinion on the
retroactivity in Federal Court of Missouri v. McNeely. It should be noted that a detennmation of
retroactivity ofa United States Supreme Court holding on federal constitutional law must be made
by the Supreme Court of the United States. United States v. Simpson, 721 F.3d 875, 876 (7th Crr.
2013).

Accordingly, the Court adopts in full the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Simko and for that and the reasons stated therein and herein dismisses Petitioner's Application for
Habeas Corpus with prejudice. No basis was shown for an evidentiary hearing and none was held
nor need be held as no fact questions were presented.

IT IS ORDERED:
1.

That the Petitioner's Objections (Doc. 22, 23) are DENIED, and the Report
and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Simko (Doc. 21) is ADOPTED.

2.

That Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Proceed informa pauperis (Doc. 7) is
GRANTED.

3.

That Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 8) is DENIED.

4.

That Respondents' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) is GRANTED.

5.

That Petitioner'S Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1)
DISMISSED with prejudice.

6.

That a Certificate of Appealability shall not issue.

Dated this

IS

11.
1tI:' day ofJune, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

0 ..

('JJJUJ.u... (A"UA~ _
awrence L. Piersol
nited States District Judge
ATTEST:
JOSEPH HAAS, CLERK