(HC) Rankin v. Honea ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGE DAVID RANKIN, No. 2:16-cv-0556 MCE AC 12 Petitioner, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 KORY L. HONEA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner proceeds pro se with an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2014 conviction for possession of controlled substances. See ECF 19 No. 1 (petition). Respondent has answered the petition, ECF No. 13, and petitioner did not file a 20 traverse. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends that the petition be denied in 21 its entirety pursuant to Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976). 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Petitioner was charged in Butte County Superior Court with possession of a controlled 24 substance for sale in violation of Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11378. He moved to suppress the 25 evidence against him, and the suppression motion was heard at the same time as the preliminary 26 hearing. CT 114-117; RT 32-68.1 The facts adduced at the suppression hearing are summarized 27 1 “CT” refers to the Clerks Transcript on Appeal; “RT” refers to the Reporter’s Transcript on 28 Appeal. 1 in the opinion of the California Court of Appeal, Lodged Doc. 4, and need not be reproduced 2 here. 3 The motion to suppress was denied. RT 68-69. Petitioner renewed the motion during jury 4 selection, and presented additional evidence. CT 238; Clerk’s Augmented Transcript at 1-4. The 5 renewed motion was denied. CT 254-256. Petitioner proceeded to trial, and the jury returned a 6 guilty verdict on February 14, 2014. CT 308. Petitioner was sentenced to a six years and eight 7 months imprisonment. CT 326. 8 Petitioner appealed the denial of his suppression motion, and his conviction was affirmed 9 on September 29, 2015. Lodged Doc. 4. The Court of Appeal found that petitioner had been 10 initially detained without reasonable suspicion, but that petitioner’s probationary status 11 “attenuated the taint” of the unlawful detention and justified denial of the motion to suppress. Id. 12 Petitioner sought review in the California Supreme Court, which was denied without comment or 13 citation on January 13, 2016. Lodged Docs. 5, 6. There were no applications for state collateral 14 relief. 15 The federal habeas petition was timely filed. ECF No. 1. 16 II. Petitioner’s Claims 17 Petitioner states three putative claims for relief: (1) petitioner was unlawfully detained, (2) 18 the ensuing search was the product of the unlawful detention, and (3) the taint of the illegal 19 detention was not attenuated by petitioner’s probation status. ECF No. 1 at 5-9. He has attached 20 a copy of his petition for review in the California Supreme Court. Id. at 28-56. The appellate 21 materials confirm that the claims petitioner forwards here are the same Fourth Amendment claims 22 that he presented to the state courts. 23 III. Petitioner’s Claims Are Not Cognizable in Federal Habeas 24 Where a state has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth 25 Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground 26 that the evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at trial. Stone 27 v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 482, 493 (1976). Stone effectively renders Fourth Amendment claims 28 unreviewable in federal habeas, except in cases where the state failed to provide a forum for 1 litigation of the issue. Because petitioner actually litigated his Fourth Amendment claims in the 2 superior court and in the California Court of Appeal, and presented them to the California 3 Supreme Court, it cannot be disputed that he had a full and fair opportunity in state court to seek a 4 remedy for any and all Fourth Amendment violations. See Stone, 428 U.S. at 494, n. 37. 5 “The relevant inquiry is whether petitioner had the opportunity to litigate his claim, not 6 whether he did in fact do so or even whether the claim was correctly decided.” Ortiz-Sandoval v. 7 Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir. 1996). Because petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to 8 litigate the validity of his detention and the subsequent search in state court, there is no basis for 9 federal habeas relief. See Myers v. Rhay, 577 F2d 504, 508 (9th Cir. 1978) (even assuming that 10 an arrest is invalid due to an unconstitutionally issued arrest warrant, Stone bars relief); 11 Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F. 2d. 1176, 1178 (9th Cir. 1990) (Stone bars federal review of a 12 state prisoner’s warrantless arrest claim); Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 613-14 (9th Cir. 1990) 13 (California’s statutory framework for litigating suppression issues satisfies the “full and fair 14 opportunity” requirement under Stone v. Powell). 15 Because relief is categorically unavailable, there is no need for review of the state courts’ 16 resolution of the constitutional issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Indeed, this court’s review is 17 prohibited by the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Stone that state courts are the final arbiters 18 of claims that evidence, and resulting convictions, have been obtained in violation of the Fourth 19 Amendment. See Newman v. Wengler, 790 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2015) (Stone v. Powell doctrine 20 survives AEDPA, and precludes federal habeas review of state court resolution of Fourth 21 Amendment issues). 22 CONCLUSION 23 For the reasons explained above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for 24 writ of habeas corpus be denied. 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days 27 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 28 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned WAS 2 AU VOU UNIS EWN RUC OI eT eS AY Tt 1 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” If petitioner files objections, 2 | he shall also address whether a certificate of appealability should issue and, if so, why and as to 3 || which issues. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed 4 | within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 5 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 6 || Martinez v. Ylist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991), 7 | DATED: June 23, 2020 ~ 8 Chtten— Lhane ALLISON CLAIRE 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28