Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04713/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04713-2/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 DENYING MOTIONS FOR

RECONSIDERATION 

AND MOTION FOR STAY

(Docket Nos. 5, 6, 7, 9)

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. Thereafter,

the Court issued an order in which it summarized the relevant background to the petition as

follows:

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. 

(Order, filed Jan. 27, 2010, at 1:20-28.)

Also in said order, the Court summarized petitioner’s claim as follows: 

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

Case 3:09-cv-04713-MMC Document 10 Filed 05/13/10 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

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; and (5) both applications for relief were denied. 

(Id. at 2:23-3:1.)

Based on the above, the Court concluded petitioner’s claim was not cognizable under

Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), which case bars federal habeas review of Fourth

Amendment claims unless the state failed to provide an opportunity for full and fair litigation

of those claims. Specifically, the Court concluded that petitioner had been provided an

opportunity for full and fair litigation of his Fourth Amendment claim in state court;

accordingly, the petition was dismissed. (Id. at 2:12-22, 3:2-4.) 

Petitioner now moves both for reconsideration of the Court’s order of dismissal and

for an order staying his conviction, on the grounds that Judge Pichon’s issuance of the arrest

warrant violated his right to due process and because petitioner cannot receive a fair review

of his conviction in state court, as assertedly evidenced by the state appellate courts’ rejection

of petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim.

 Petitioner’s motions will be denied. As an initial matter, petitioner raises no grounds

that warrant reconsideration of the dismissal of petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim. 

Further, it appears from petitioner’s motions that he has not exhausted his state

remedies with respect to his due process challenge to the validity of his conviction. In

particular, although it was not clearly set forth in the instant petition, petitioner’s pending

motions clarify that the prior state habeas petitions referenced herein challenged, on the basis

of the alleged invalidity of the arrest warrant, the validity of petitioner’s then ongoing state

criminal proceedings. The state courts, however, have not been presented with the

opportunity to rule on the validity of petitioner’s conviction (as opposed to his prosecution),

as petitioner had not yet been convicted when his state petitions were filed. 

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas

proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement are first required to exhaust state

judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the

Case 3:09-cv-04713-MMC Document 10 Filed 05/13/10 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

highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every

claim they seek to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c), Rose v. Lundy, 455

U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). The exhaustion-of-state-remedies doctrine reflects a policy of

federal-state comity to give the state “an initial opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged

violations of its prisoners’ federal rights.” Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971)

(internal quotation and citation omitted). Consequently, before petitioner may, by way of

federal habeas corpus, raise claims challenging the validity of his conviction, he must present

such claims in the state courts, including the Supreme Court of California. As petitioner has

not done so, he has not exhausted his state remedies. Such finding is unaffected by

petitioner’s assertion that the state courts will not fairly review his conviction nor does such

assertion otherwise suffice to warrant this Court’s intervention prior to petitioner’s

exhaustion of his claims.

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s motions for reconsideration and to stay his state

conviction are hereby DENIED. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 9.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 13, 2010 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-04713-MMC Document 10 Filed 05/13/10 Page 3 of 3