(HC) Golden v. Koenig ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEROME GOLDEN, Case No. 1:18-cv-01003-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 13 v. 14 M. E. SPEARMAN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Jerome Golden, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus 18 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. The matter is before the court for screening under Rule 4 of 19 the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas 20 proceeding must examine the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it 21 “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 22 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). The petition presents two defects that seem to warrant summary 23 dismissal of the petition. We will identify those defects and order petitioner to show cause why 24 the court should not dismiss the petition. 25 First, petitioner contends that state courts erred in deciding his motion to suppress, but 26 parties ordinarily cannot invoke the exclusionary rule or raise suppression issues in habeas 27 proceedings. See Newman v. Wengler, 790 F.3d 876, 878 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Stone v. 28 Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494 (1976)); Fernandez v. Busby, 27 F. Supp. 3d 1046, 1051 (C.D. Cal. 1 2014). This general rule has one exceedingly narrow exception, which requires a habeas 2 petitioner to show that he had no “opportunity for full and fair litigation” of the claim at issue. 3 See Newman, 790 F.3d at 878 (quoting Stone, 428 U.S. at 494). The Ninth Circuit has concluded 4 that even considering a party’s suppression motion, by itself, suffices to preclude a suppression 5 claim in a habeas proceeding, see Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 1990), and this 6 court has summarily dismissed suppression claims asserted by habeas petitioners, see Camel v. 7 Sherman, No. 2:18-cv-1560, 2019 WL 3457968, at *9 (E.D. Cal. July 31, 2019).1 8 Here, it appears that petitioner had an opportunity for full and fair litigation of the first 9 habeas claim that he raises now: that state trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. See 10 People v. Golden, 19 Cal. App. 5th 905, 910 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017). Petitioner must explain in the 11 amended petition why he believes that he had no opportunity for full and fair litigation on his 12 suppression claim. 13 Second, petitioner’s arguments are conclusory. He argues generally that the state 14 appellate court’s decision was contrary to clearly established law and based on an unreasonable 15 determination of the facts. See ECF No. 1 at 4. But petitioner does not develop this argument or 16 explain why he believes that the state court erred. The amended petition must contain petitioner’s 17 arguments how the state court erred and some explanation from petitioner why he believes that 18 his custody violates federal law. 19 I. Order 20 1. Petitioner must file an amended petition addressing the defects identified in this order. 21 2. Petitioner must file an amended petition within thirty days from the date of service of 22 this order. 23 3. Petitioner’s failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this case. 24 25 1 We have found no precedent in which the Ninth Circuit ruled that a petitioner succeeded in showing the deprivation of such an opportunity. Other circuits have explained that the 26 circumstances that could show deprivation of an opportunity for full and fair litigation are truly 27 rare. Cf. Cabrera v. Hinsley, 324 F.3d 527, 531 (7th Cir. 2003) (listing examples such as a judge taking bribes, sleepwalking, or stating egregious errors of law such as “probable cause is not 28 required in Illinois”). 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. ° zg : —N prssann — Dated: _ August 5, 2019 4 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 No. 202 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28