Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03308/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03308-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
People of the State of California
Defendant
Edjuan C. Scott
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 09-3308 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 *E-Filed 4/7/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

EDJUAN SCOTT,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent. /

No. C 09-3308 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Edjuan Scott 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. Petitioner has paid the filing

fee. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, petitioner pleaded nolo contendere to being an accessory to

a crime. Petitioner was sentenced to sixteen months. Petitioner sought, and was denied,

relief on direct state review. It appears that petitioner did not seek state habeas relief.

 

Case 3:09-cv-03308-RS Document 7 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 3
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 09-3308 RS (PR)

2 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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 his conviction is

constitutionally invalid because of various Fourth Amendment violations by the police, and

erroneous rulings on his Fourth Amendment claims by the state courts. These claims are 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

claims are not cognizable.

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 7, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-03308-RS Document 7 Filed 04/07/10 Page 2 of 3
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 09-3308 RS (PR)

3 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

Edjuan C. Scott 

F-26905 

Contra Costa County Jail 

901 Court Street 

Martinez, CA 94553 

DATED: 04/7/2010 

 

 

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 3:09-cv-03308-RS Document 7 Filed 04/07/10 Page 3 of 3