Anderson v. Speer

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01961
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE

8 NICHOLAS WINDSOR ANDERSON,

9 Petitioner, Case No. C24-1961-KKE-MLP

10 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 SCOTT SPEER,

12 Respondent.

14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Petitioner Nicholas Anderson is currently confined at the Stafford Creek Corrections 16 Center in Aberdeen, Washington. He has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief 17 from a judgment and sentence entered in King County Superior Court case number 14-1-06506- 18 6. (See dkt. # 3 at 2.) Though Petitioner presented his petition to the Court as one filed under 28 19 U.S.C. § 2241, the Court has construed the petition as one filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (See 20 dkt. # 6 at 1-2 (citing White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[Section] 2254 21 is the exclusive vehicle for a habeas petition by a state prisoner in custody pursuant to a state 22 court judgment[.]”)).) The petition has not been served on Respondent. After careful review of 23 1 the petition, and the balance of the record, this Court concludes that Petitioner’s federal habeas 2 petition should be dismissed. 3 II. DISCUSSION

4 The Court received Petitioner’s federal habeas petition for filing on November 26, 2024. 5 (See dkt. # 1.) Petitioner asserted therein that his current custody is unlawful because King 6 County authorities failed to secure an arrest warrant before seizing his person, in violation of his 7 Fourth Amendment rights. (See dkt. ## 3, 3-3.) Petitioner claimed that because no warrant was 8 issued for his arrest, the King County Superior Court lacked authority to enter a judgment and 9 sentence in his criminal case. (See dkt. # 3-3 at 2.) 10 After reviewing the petition, this Court determined that the single claim asserted by 11 Petitioner was not eligible for federal habeas review. Thus, on December 19, 2024, this Court 12 issued an Order directing Petitioner to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. (Dkt. 13 # 6.) The Court explained therein that in order to obtain relief under § 2254, a petitioner must

14 demonstrate that each of his claims for federal habeas relief has been properly exhausted in the 15 state courts. (See id. at 2 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c)).) The Court further explained that 16 though Petitioner indicated in his petition that he had filed multiple appeals challenging his state 17 court judgment, nothing in the record suggested Petitioner had presented his Fourth Amendment 18 claim to any state appellate court for review and, thus, that it appeared his claim was 19 unexhausted and therefore ineligible for federal habeas review. (See id.) 20 This Court went on to observe that even if Petitioner could demonstrate his claim was 21 properly exhausted, the claim was likely not cognizable in this action. (Dkt. # 6 at 2.) The Court 22 explained that in Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), the Supreme Court held that federal 23 habeas review of a Fourth Amendment claim is barred unless the petitioner can show that he was 1 “denied an opportunity for full and fair litigation of that claim at trial and on direct review.” (Id. 2 (citing Stone, 428 U.S. at 494 n.37).) The Court noted that nothing in the record suggested 3 Petitioner had been denied the opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in the state

4 courts, and thus, even if properly exhausted, the claim was likely barred by Stone. 5 Petitioner was directed to file a response to the Order to Show Cause within thirty days 6 and was advised that his failure to timely respond would result in a recommendation that this 7 action be dismissed. To date, Petitioner has filed no response to the Court’s Order. Because 8 Petitioner makes no showing that he presented his proposed ground for federal habeas relief to 9 the state courts for review, nor any showing that he was denied the opportunity to litigate his 10 Fourth Amendment claim in the state courts, Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable in this federal 11 habeas action. Petitioner’s federal habeas petition should therefore be dismissed. 12 III. CONCLUSION 13 Based on the foregoing, this Court recommends that Petitioner’s federal habeas petition

14 and this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. 15 A petitioner seeking post-conviction relief under § 2254 may appeal a district court’s 16 dismissal of his federal habeas petition only after obtaining a certificate of appealability from a 17 district or circuit judge. A certificate of appealability may issue only where a petitioner has made 18 “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A 19 petitioner satisfies this standard “by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the 20 district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues 21 presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 22 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Under the above standard, this Court concludes that Petitioner is not 23 entitled to a certificate of appealability in this matter. This Court therefore recommends that a 1 certificate of appealability be denied. A proposed Order accompanies this Report and 2 Recommendation. 3 Objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, should be filed with the Clerk and

4 served upon all parties to this suit within fourteen (14) days of the date on which this Report and 5 Recommendation is signed. Failure to file objections within the specified time may affect your 6 right to appeal. Objections should be noted for consideration on the District Judge’s motions 7 calendar fourteen (14) days after they are filed. Responses to objections may be filed by the day 8 before the noting date. If no timely objections are filed, the matter will be ready for 9 consideration by the District Judge on February 25, 2025. 10 DATED this 4th day of February, 2025.

11 A 12

MICHELLE L. PETERSON 13 United States Magistrate Judge

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23