Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04713/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04713-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Howard Herships
Petitioner
People of the State of California
Defendant

Document Text:

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

HOWARD HERSHIPS,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

 Respondent.

______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-4713 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On September 29, 2009, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has

paid the filing fee.

BACKGROUND

In November 2005, Judge Rise J. Pichon, of the Superior Court of Santa Clara

County, issued a felony warrant for petitioner’s arrest. Subsequently, in November 2006,

petitioner’s motion to recuse Judge Pichon from presiding over further proceedings in

petitioner’s criminal case was granted, on the ground that the alleged victim in the case had

made substantial donations to the employer of Judge Pichon’s spouse. Thereafter, petitioner

moved in the state courts for dismissal of the criminal charges against him, arguing that

Judge Pichon was not the “neutral and detached magistrate” the Fourth Amendment requires

for the issuance of arrest warrants. Ultimately, on February 11, 2009, the California Supreme

Court denied petitioner’s petition for review. 

Case 3:09-cv-04713-MMC Document 3 Filed 01/27/10 Page 1 of 3
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

DISCUSSION

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);

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) (internal quotations and citations

omitted).

Petitioner claims that his conviction is invalid because the felony arrest warrant issued

against him was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Such claim, however, is not

cognizable on federal habeas corpus review. In particular, Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465

(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. See id. at 481-82, 494. 

Moreover, the existence of a state procedure allowing an opportunity for full and fair

litigation of Fourth Amendment claims bars federal habeas consideration of those claims

even where the state procedure was not used by the petitioner, see Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d

610, 613-14 (9th Cir. 1990), or the state courts’ determination of the Fourth Amendment

issues was improper, see Locks v. Sumner, 703 F.2d 403, 408 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 464

U.S. 933 (1983). 

In the instant action, petitioner states that: (1) following Judge Pichon’s recusal,

petitioner contested the issuance of the arrest warrant in the trial court by way of a motion to

quash; (2) the motion was denied on the ground petitioner had not shown prejudice resulting

from Judge Pichon’s financial links to the alleged victim; (3) petitioner subsequently raised

the issue in the California Court of Appeal by way of a habeas corpus petition; (4) thereafter,

petitioner raised the issue in the California Supreme Court by way of a petition for review;

Case 3:09-cv-04713-MMC Document 3 Filed 01/27/10 Page 2 of 3
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

and (5) both applications for relief were denied. 

Based on the above, the Court concludes petitioner was provided an opportunity for

full and fair litigation of his Fourth Amendment claim in state court. Accordingly, review of

that claim is not available herein, and the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. 

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 27, 2010 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-04713-MMC Document 3 Filed 01/27/10 Page 3 of 3