Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00245/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00245-0/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

No. C 10-0245 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 *E-Filed 4/1/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

BENJAMIN COVARRUBIAS RUEZGA,

Petitioner,

v.

EDMUND BROWN, and

RAYMOND OJEDA, 

Respondents. /

No. C 10-0245 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Benjamin Covarrubias Ruezga filed this pro se action for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now before the Court for review

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, petitioner, in 2007, pleaded nolo contendere to renting a

residence to a person for illegal drug activity, possession of stolen property, and possession

of an assault rifle. Petitioner was sentenced to sixteen months of time served, and three years

probation. Petitioner sought, and was denied, relief on direct and collateral state review. 

Case 3:10-cv-00245-RS Document 5 Filed 04/01/10 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

No. C 10-0245 RS (PR)

2 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This federal petition followed. 

DISCUSSION

This 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 in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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). 

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner alleges that the search of the residence

was constitutionally invalid because the search warrant was based on false statements. This

claim is not cognizable on federal habeas review. 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. 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. 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. See Cal. Pen. Code § 1538.5. Accordingly,

petitioner’s claim is not cognizable.

//

//

//

//

Case 3:10-cv-00245-RS Document 5 Filed 04/01/10 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

No. C 10-0245 RS (PR)

3 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner having failed to state a cognizable claim, the action is DISMISSED without

prejudice.

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondents and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 31, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00245-RS Document 5 Filed 04/01/10 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

No. C 10-0245 RS (PR)

4 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A HARD COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO:

Benjamin Covarrubias Ruezga 

988 Runnymede Street 

East Palo Alto, CA 94303 

DATED: 03/31/2010 

 

 

s/ Chambers Staff 

Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

* Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to any co-counsel who have

not registered with the Court's electronic filing system.

Case 3:10-cv-00245-RS Document 5 Filed 04/01/10 Page 4 of 4