Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02236/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02236-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darrel Adams
Respondent
Jorge G. Garcia
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORGE GONZALES GARCIA, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

DARREL ADAMS, Warden, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-2236 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND

GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

(Docket No. 3)

Petitioner, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at California State Prison in

Corcoran, California, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254 challenging his 2005 Contra Costa County Superior Court conviction for first

degree murder as well as certain drug crimes. Petitioner is currently incarcerated serving

a 28 years-to-life sentence. The Court concludes that Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable

under § 2254 and will dismiss the petition. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis is GRANTED (docket no. 3). 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A district 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); 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

Case 3:07-cv-02236-JSW Document 5 Filed 10/15/07 Page 1 of 5
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

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. Petitioner’s Claim

As grounds for habeas relief, Petitioner alleges that law enforcement officials

arrested him without probable cause, violating his rights under the Fourth Amendment to

the United States Constitution. ed, or was involved with, such crime to warrant a police

hunch and illegally prolong his detention. However, this claim is not cognizable because

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. Even if the state courts’ determination of the Fourth

Amendment issues is improper, it will not be remedied in federal habeas corpus actions so

long as the petitioner was provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. Locks

v. Sumner, 703 F.2d 403, 408 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 933 (1983). 

All Stone v. Powell requires is the initial opportunity for a fair hearing. Such an

opportunity for a fair hearing forecloses this Court’s inquiry upon habeas petition into the

trial court’s subsequent course of action, including whether or not the trial court made any

express findings of fact. See Caldwell v. Cupp, 781 F.2d 714, 715 (9th Cir. 1986). 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 and, in his

petition, Petitioner states that a suppression hearing was conducted in state court. The

Court concludes that any amendment would be futile, as Petitioner cannot proceed with

his Fourth Amendment claim in a federal habeas action. Accordingly, the instant petition

Case 3:07-cv-02236-JSW Document 5 Filed 10/15/07 Page 2 of 5
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

is dismissed because Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable under § 2254. 

CONCLUSION

The instant petition is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim under 

§ 2254. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 15, 2007 JEFFREY S. WHITE 

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02236-JSW Document 5 Filed 10/15/07 Page 3 of 5
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORGE GONZALES GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DARREL ADAMS et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-02236 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on October 15, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Jorge G. Garcia

V70850

P.O. Box 3466

Corcoran, CA 93212

Dated: October 15, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-02236-JSW Document 5 Filed 10/15/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Case 3:07-cv-02236-JSW Document 5 Filed 10/15/07 Page 5 of 5