Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00268/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00268-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
H. Lackner
Respondent
Daniel Velasquez
Petitioner

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL VELASQUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

H. LACKNER, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00268 LJO GSA HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is in custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at 

the Sierra Conservation Center in Jamestown, California, pursuant to a 2011 conviction sustained 

in Kern County Superior Court for carjacking and second degree robbery. On January 6, 2012, 

he was sentenced to serve a sentence of twenty years in state prison. 

On February 27, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. He 

raises the following four claims for relief: (1) “The trial court erred in denying Petitioner’s 

motion to suppress the evidence found in violation of Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment right of the 

United States Constitution”; (2) “The trial court erred in granting prosecution witness Pablo 

Avalos immunity. This error denied Petitioner his due process rights within the meaning of the 

Case 1:14-cv-00268-LJO-GSA Document 8 Filed 03/19/14 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

2

United States Constitution”; (3) “Petitioner was denied his constitutional right to the effective 

assistance of counsel during his direct state appeal”; and (4) “The cumulative effect of the trial 

errors denied the Petitioner his constitutional right to a fair trial.”

DISCUSSION

I. Preliminary Review of Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner 

is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and 

direct the clerk to notify the petitioner. 

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to 

dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. See Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th 

Cir.2001). A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it 

appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 

440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).

II. Failure to State a Cognizable Federal Claim

In the first claim of his petition, Petitioner alleges the trial court violated his Fourth 

Amendment rights by denying his motion to suppress evidence. He contends he was subjected to 

an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment when investigating 

officers conducted a warrantless search of his residence without permission or any exigent 

circumstances.

The Supreme Court has held that “where the State has provided an opportunity for full 

and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal 

habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure 

was introduced at his trial.” Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494 (1976); see Woolery v. Arave, 8 

F.3d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir.1993) (“We read Stone as a categorical limitation on the applicability 

of fourth amendment exclusionary rules in habeas corpus proceedings.” (citations omitted)). The 

only inquiry this Court can make is whether Petitioner had a fair opportunity to litigate his claim. 

Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir.1996) (“The relevant inquiry is whether 

Case 1:14-cv-00268-LJO-GSA Document 8 Filed 03/19/14 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

3

petitioner had the opportunity to litigate his claim, not whether he did, in fact, do so, or even 

whether the claim was correctly decided.” (citations omitted)); Siripongs v. Calderon, 35 F.3d 

1308, 1321 (9th Cir.1994) (“[Petitioner's argument goes not to the fullness and fairness of his 

opportunity to litigate the claim, but to the correctness of the state court resolution, an issue 

which Stone v. Powell makes irrelevant.” (citation omitted)). 

The policy behind Stone’s holding is that the exclusionary rule is applied to stop future 

unconstitutional conduct of law enforcement. Stone, 428 U.S. at 492. However, excluding 

evidence that is not untrustworthy creates a windfall to the defendant at a substantial societal 

cost. Id. at 489-90; Woolery, 8 F.3d at 1327-28. Thus, the Ninth Circuit has described the 

rationale for this rule by saying:

The holding is grounded in the Court's conclusion that in cases where a 

petitioner's Fourth Amendment claim has been adequately litigated in state court, 

enforcing the exclusionary rule through writs of habeas corpus would not further 

the deterrent and educative purposes of the rule to an extent sufficient to counter 

the negative effect such a policy would have on the interests of judicial efficiency, 

comity and federalism. 

Woolery, 8 F.3d at 1326; see also Stone, 428 U.S. at 493-494.

In this case, Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim was litigated through a suppression 

hearing in the Kern County Superior Court on September 12, 2011. (Petition, Ex. A at 2-26.) 

After hearing argument from the prosecution and the defense, the trial court denied the motion.

(Petition, Ex. A at 26.) The Court finds that the state court provided Petitioner with a "full and 

fair opportunity to litigate" his Fourth Amendment claim. Stone, 428 U.S. at 494; Gordon v. 

Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 613-14 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that motion pursuant to California Penal 

Code Section 1538.5 provided opportunity in state court for “full and fair litigation” of Fourth 

Amendment claim (quoting Stone, 482 U.S. at 481-82)). Accordingly, the Court finds that 

habeas relief is foreclosed on Petitioner’s first claim. The claim should be dismissed with 

prejudice. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Ground One of the petition for writ of 

habeas corpus be DISMISSED with prejudice. 

Case 1:14-cv-00268-LJO-GSA Document 8 Filed 03/19/14 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

4

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill, 

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 

Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of 

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written 

objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s 

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00268-LJO-GSA Document 8 Filed 03/19/14 Page 4 of 4