Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02783/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02783-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAHER M. MUADDI,

Petitioner,

 v.

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL

CENTER, 

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 06-2783 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

On April 24, 2006, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the abovetitled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the

filing fee. 

BACKGROUND

In March 2004, in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, petitioner was sentenced

to a term of 7 years in state prison, following his conviction for transporting drugs. The

California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence, and the California Supreme

Court denied review. 

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

Case 3:06-cv-02783-MMC Document 2 Filed 06/14/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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. Legal Claims

Petitioner sets forth six claims in the form petition and on a page attached thereto

titled “Questions(s) Presented.” These claims are further explained in the petition for review

filed in the California Supreme Court and attached to the form petition herein. Petitioner

claims: (1) evidence from a search of petitioner’s car was admitted in violation of his Fourth

Amendment rights; (2) evidence of his prior conviction was admitted and infected the trial;

(3) the trial court’s denial of his request to recall a witness violated his right to due process;

(4) misconduct by the prosecutor violated his constitutional rights to confrontation, due

process and counsel; (5) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, in violation of the

Sixth Amendment; and (6) cumulative errors affected the outcome of the trial.

The first of the above-referenced claims fails to state a cognizable basis for federal

habeas relief. Federal habeas review of Fourth Amendment claims is barred unless the state

did not provide an opportunity for full and fair litigation of those claims. See Stone v.

Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 481-82, 494 (1976). In this instance, there exists a state procedure in

California affording petitioner an opportunity to fully and fairly litigate his Fourth

Amendment claims, and, consequently, consideration of those claims herein is barred. See

Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 613-14 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding whether defendant actually

litigated 4th Amendment claim in California courts irrelevant in light of opportunity to do so

under California law). Accordingly, the first claim will be dismissed. 

Case 3:06-cv-02783-MMC Document 2 Filed 06/14/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The second and sixth claims likewise fail to state a cognizable basis for federal habeas

relief, in that neither alleges a violation of federal law. A writ of habeas corpus is available

under 28 U.S.C § 2254 "only on the basis of some transgression of federal law binding on the

state courts." Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Engle v. Isaac,

456 U.S. 107, 119 (1982)), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). It is not available to redress

violations of state law or for alleged error in the interpretation or application of state law. 

See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). Here, in his second and sixth claims,

petitioner has not identified what law allegedly was violated, as is necessary to provide

respondent with adequate notice of the claim being asserted. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908

F.2d 490, 491-92 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding petitioner must state claims with sufficient

specificity). Petitioner will be given leave to amend these two claims to allege what federal

law, if any, he is asserting was violated. Failure to so amend will result in dismissal of these

claims without prejudice. Petitioner is advised that any federal basis for such claims must be

exhausted, by petitioner’s having sufficiently presented the federal basis for the claims to the

Supreme Court of California, before raising them in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),

(c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). 

Liberally construed, petitioner’s third, fourth and fifth claims are cognizable. 

CONCLUSION 

In light of the foregoing, the Court rules as follows:

1. Petitioner’s first claim is DISMISSED. The second and sixth claims are

DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. If petitioner wishes to amend these two claims,

he must, within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed, file an amended petition in

which he corrects the deficiencies noted above. The amended petition must include the

caption and civil case number used in this order, No. C 06-2783 MMC (PR), and must

include the words AMENDED PETITION on the first page. In the amended petition,

petitioner must include all the claims he wishes to present; in particular, petitioner must

reassert in his amended petition the three cognizable claims (his third, fourth and fifth claims)

Case 3:06-cv-02783-MMC Document 2 Filed 06/14/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

from the instant petition.

2. If petitioner fails to timely amend the petition as ordered herein, the

second and sixth claims will be dismissed with prejudice and this matter will proceed

only on the basis of the three cognizable claims.

3. It is petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

Court and respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court's

orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and/or Civil Local Rule 3-11, for failure to

prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 14, 2006 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02783-MMC Document 2 Filed 06/14/06 Page 4 of 4