Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02495/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02495-1/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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mickey Clarence Rosenquist, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Attorney General of the State of Arizona,

et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-2495-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. 8), petitioner’s supplemental memoranda (doc. 14),

respondent’s response (doc. 16), and petitioner’s reply (doc. 19). We also have before us the

report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending that the

petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied (doc. 20), petitioner’s objection to the report and

recommendation (doc. 21), and respondent’s response to the petitioner’s objection (doc. 22).

The Magistrate Judge concluded that petitioner was afforded a full and fair

opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claims, thus precluding federal review.

Petitioner objects to the report and recommendation on the grounds that the magistrate who

issued the search warrant that led to petitioner’s arrest was misled by information in an

affidavit that the affiant knew or should have known was false, and that the false affidavit

amounted to actionable judicial deception in the procurement of the warrant. Petitioner

Case 2:09-cv-02495-FJM Document 23 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 2
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 -

contends that because of the material failures in the affidavit, the warrant was issued without

probable cause. Petitioner also argues that government officials violated his right to due

process when they arbitrarily selected his house to search, and arbitrarily chose to execute

the search warrant at night. 

We do not reach the merits of petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim because we agree

with the Magistrate Judge that it is not cognizable on habeas corpus review . Petitioner had

a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claims in state court. See Stone

v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 481–82, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 3046 (1976). The Superior Court of

Arizona held hearings on petitioner’s motions to suppress on April 1, 2005, and on May 6,

2005. Additionally, to the extent that petitioner raises a new due process claim in his

objection to the magistrate’s report and recommendation, such an argument does not satisfy

the exhaustion requirement for habeas review because petitioner did not fairly present it in

the state court proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S.

4, 6, 103 S.Ct. 276, 277 (1982). 

We therefore accept the recommended decision of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). IT IS ORDERED DENYING the petition for writ of habeas corpus

(doc. 8). 

DATED this 21st day of July, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02495-FJM Document 23 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 2