Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00678/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00678-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD SINCLAIR ENGLISH,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JOHN MARSHALL, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-0678 PJH (PR)

DENIAL OF LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; ORDER OF

DISMISSAL

(Doc 2)

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at California Men’s Colony

in San Luis Obispo, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. He also requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner pleaded no contest in Monterey County to two counts of possession of

cocaine base for sale and one count of transportation of cocaine base. He was

sentenced to eleven years and four months in prison. He unsuccessfully appealed his

conviction to the California Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of California denied

review. His state habeas petitions also were denied. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a

person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is

in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28

U.S.C. § 2254(a). It shall "award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to

show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." Id. § 2243. 

B. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) Counsel was

ineffective in failing to raise several additional grounds for a motion to suppress; (2) the

search of his car was “illegal;” (3) his Fourth Amendment rights were violated in that he

was detained longer than necessary to effectuate the purpose of the investigative stop;

and (4) the detention was no longer justified once the identities of petitioner and his

passenger had been established. 

Rule four of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States

District Courts provides, in part, that “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition

and any exhibits attached thereto that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district

court, the judge must enter an order summarily dismissing the petition . . . .” It plainly

appears from the face of this petition that petitioner is not entitled to relief.

As to issue one, a defendant who pleads guilty cannot later raise in habeas

corpus proceedings independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional

rights that occurred before the plea of guilty. Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 319-20

(1983) (guilty plea forecloses consideration of pre-plea constitutional deprivations);

Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 266-67 (1973) (same); Moran v. Godinez, 57 F.3d

690, 700 (9th Cir. 1994) (refusing to consider contention that petitioner’s attorneys were

ineffective because they failed to obtain suppression of confession). A nolo contendere

plea, as here, is the same as a plea of guilty for purposes of this analysis. See

Tamayo-Reyes v. Keeney, 926 F.2d 1492, 1494 n.3 (9th Cir. 1991), rev'd on other

grounds, 504 U.S. 1 (1992); see also Cal. Penal Code § 1016 (nolo plea has same

effect as guilty plea). Any ineffectiveness of petitioner’s counsel in the pre-plea

proceedings on the suppression motion was waived by the plea. This issue cannot be

grounds for federal habeas relief. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

In issue two petitioner contends that a police search of his car violated Rule

41(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The federal rules, of course, do not

apply to state court proceedings, so it is evident that this claim presents no basis for

habeas relief. 

Issues three and four are based on petitioner’s Fourth Amendment right to be

free of unreasonable searches and seizures. Such claims are not cognizable in federal

collateral proceedings. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 481-82, 494 (1976). This would

also apply to issue two, to whatever extent it might be based on the Fourth Amendment

as well as the cited federal rule. Therefore, issues two, three and four also provide no

basis for federal habeas relief. 

It thus plainly appears from the petition and exhibits that petitioner is not entitled

to relief, so the case must be dismissed. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases In the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. 2254.

CONCLUSION 

1. In view of petitioner’s account balance, leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(doc 2) is DENIED. Petitioner shall pay the five dollar filing fee to the clerk of this court

within thirty days of the date this order is entered. 

2. For the reasons set out above, this case is DISMISSED. The clerk shall notify

petitioner of this dismissal, and serve a copy of this order and the petition on the

respondent and the Attorney General of California. See id. The clerk shall close the file.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 6 , 2005.

 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.05\ENGLISH678.DSM United States District Judge