Norman Kelly Miles v. Domingo Uribe, Jr. et al
Filing
6
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The court HEREBY ORDERS THAT petitioner shall, no later than October 27, 2011, show cause in writing why his Petition should not be summarily denied under Powell. (mr)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
NORMAN KELLY MILES,
12
Petitioner,
13
v.
14
DOMINGO URIBE, JR., Warden,
15
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. SA CV 11-1453 RGK (FMO)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
16
17
On July 22, 2011, Norman Kelly Miles (“petitioner”), a California state prisoner proceeding
18
pro se, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California a Petition for
19
Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Petition”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
20
On August 3, 2011, United States District Judge John A. Houston issued an Order transferring the
21
Petition to this Court, and the Petition was filed in this Court on September 21, 2011.
22
The pending Petition challenges petitioner’s 2009 conviction and sentence in Orange
23
County Superior Court, Case No. 07NF1007, (Petition at 1), and raises the following claims for
24
habeas relief:
25
1.
“The Fourth Amendment Requires Reversal of the Conviction Because the Motion
26
to Traverse the Warrant Should Have Been Granted Due to the Absence of Probable Cause to
27
Issue a Warrant[.]” (Petition at 6.1-6.8).
28
1
2
3
4
5
2.
“Did the Search and Seizure by Government Agents Violate [Petitioner’s]
Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment Right(s)[.]” (Petition at 7).
3.
“The Trial Court Erred [in] Its Finding [on] the Issue of Consent or Exigent
Circumstances [Regarding] Initial Warrantless Entry/Search [of] the Garage[.]” (Petition at 8).
4.
“Petitioner Moves This Court for the Issuance of a Certificate [of] Probable Cause
6
Based on Constitutional, Jurisdictional, or Other Substantial Ground[s] Going to the Legality of the
7
Proceedings from the Final Judgment of Conviction[.]” (Petition at 9).
8
Since Fourth Amendment claims are not cognizable in federal habeas corpus proceedings
9
if a petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claims in state court, Stone v. Powell
10
(Powell), 428 U.S. 465, 481-82, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 3046 (1976); Villafuerte v. Stewart, 111 F.3d 616,
11
627 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1079 (1998), the court HEREBY ORDERS
12
THAT petitioner shall, no later than October 27, 2011, show cause in writing why his Petition
13
should not be summarily denied under Powell. Failure to timely file a written response to this
14
Order shall be deemed as consent to the denial of the pending Petition under Powell.
15
Dated this 29th day of September, 2011.
16
17
/s/
Fernando M. Olguin
United States Magistrate Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
