Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05194/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05194-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis as Moot; No Filing Fee Is Due

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\White194dis 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHANNON L. WHITE,

Petitioner,

 vs.

T. FELKER, Warden, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-5194 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL;

DENYING MOTIONS TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AS MOOT; NO

FILING FEE IS DUE

(Docket Nos. 2, 4)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2004 Napa Superior Court

conviction for robbery. Petitioner is currently incarcerated serving a twenty-five years-tolife sentence. The Court concludes that Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable under § 2254

and will dismiss the petition. Based upon the dismissal, the Court will DENY Petitioner’s

motions to proceed in forma pauperis (docket nos. 2, 4) as moot. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A district court may entertain a petition for 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

**Original filed 3/1/07**

Case 5:06-cv-05194-JF Document 6 Filed 03/01/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis as Moot; No Filing Fee Is Due

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\White194dis 2

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

U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

A district court 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 that

the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary

dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory,

palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d

490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

B. Petitioner’s Claim

As grounds for habeas relief, Petitioner alleges that his detention was not

supported by probable cause because information regarding the crime was not supported

by evidence that he committed, or was involved with, such crime to warrant a police

hunch and illegally prolong his detention. Petitioner states that he was ten miles from the

location. Petitioner cites to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) and United States v. Arvizu,

151 L.Ed. 2d 740 [534 U.S. 236] (2002) in support of his claim. 

However, this claim is not cognizable because Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 481-

82, 494 (1976), bars federal habeas review of Fourth Amendment claims unless the state

did not provide an opportunity for full and fair litigation of those claims. Even if the state

courts’ determination of the Fourth Amendment issues is improper, it will not be

remedied in federal habeas corpus actions so long as the petitioner was provided a full

and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. Locks v. Sumner, 703 F.2d 403, 408 (9th Cir.),

cert. denied, 464 U.S. 933 (1983). All Stone v. Powell requires is the initial opportunity

for a fair hearing. Such an opportunity for a fair hearing forecloses this Court’s inquiry

upon habeas petition into the trial court’s subsequent course of action, including whether

or not the trial court made any express findings of fact. See Caldwell v. Cupp, 781 F.2d

714, 715 (9th Cir. 1986). The existence of a state procedure allowing an opportunity for

full and fair litigation of Fourth Amendment claims, rather than a defendant’s actual use

of those procedures, bars federal habeas consideration of those claims. 

Case 5:06-cv-05194-JF Document 6 Filed 03/01/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis as Moot; No Filing Fee Is Due

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\White194dis 3

See Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 613-14 (9th Cir. 1990) (whether or not defendant

litigated Fourth Amendment claim in state court is irrelevant if he had opportunity to do

so under California law). California state procedure provides an opportunity for full

litigation of any Fourth Amendment claim. The Court concludes that any amendment

would be futile, as Petitioner cannot proceed with his Fourth Amendment claim in a

federal habeas action. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed because Petitioner’s

claim is not cognizable under § 2254. 

CONCLUSION

The instant petition is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim under 

§ 2254. Based upon the dismissal, Petitioner’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis

(docket nos. 2, 4) are DENIED as moot. No filing fee is due. The Clerk shall terminate

all pending motions and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

3/1/07

Case 5:06-cv-05194-JF Document 6 Filed 03/01/07 Page 3 of 4
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

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis as Moot; No Filing Fee Is Due

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\White194dis 4

This is to certify that a copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Shannon L. White

V-59263

High Desert State Prison

P.O. Box 3030

Susanville, CA 96127-3030

Case 5:06-cv-05194-JF Document 6 Filed 03/01/07 Page 4 of 4