This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by John Roettgen, a California state prisoner convicted by a jury of multiple counts of lewd acts upon children, oral copulation, and continuous sexual abuse, resulting in a sentence of 69 years to life. The petitioner claimed violations of his constitutional rights due to the trial court's admission of certain physical and predisposition evidence, jury instructions that allegedly permitted conviction under a preponderance standard, and imposition of an upper term and consecutive sentences based on aggravating facts not found by the jury. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full, denied the petition, and dismissed the action with prejudice. The court reasoned that the state court's rulings were consistent with federal constitutional standards, including those addressed in Cunningham v. California, that any state-law sentencing issues were not cognizable on federal habeas review, and that no evidentiary hearing was required.
The case involved defendant Michael Ming Zhang's motion to suppress evidence seized during an FBI search of his residence and business premises for violations of U.S. export laws and counterfeit goods trafficking. The court denied the motion, holding that the warrant was validly executed when agents entered at 9:25 p.m., which qualified as daytime under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41, and that the search's continuation until 4:00 a.m. did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The core reasoning was that a search begun during authorized hours may reasonably extend past 10:00 p.m. when justified by the totality of circumstances, such as the large quantity of evidence requiring extensive cataloging and packaging, the minimal inconvenience to the family present, and the professional manner of the search.
In Boulware v. Marshall, a state prisoner filed a federal habeas petition challenging his resentencing on one count of insurance fraud after two related fraud convictions were dismissed following a prior conditional grant of habeas relief for instructional error. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and dismissed the petition with prejudice. The court reasoned that the upper-term sentence imposed under California's Three Strikes Law did not violate Apprendi, Blakely, or Cunningham because post-Senate Bill 40 reforms and judicially reformed statutes gave sentencing courts discretion within the statutory range, and applying that framework on resentencing raised no ex post facto concerns.
This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Jose Beltran, a California state prisoner convicted in 2000 of conspiracy to commit kidnapping for ransom, multiple counts of kidnapping for ransom, and grand theft, for which he received consecutive life sentences. After state courts denied his appeals and habeas petitions, Beltran sought federal relief, claiming Brady violations and actual innocence based on new evidence from witnesses. The magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing, found the claims without merit, and recommended denying the petition either as an unauthorized second or successive filing or on the substantive grounds that no constitutional error occurred. The district court conducted a de novo review, adopted the report and recommendation in full, and entered judgment denying the petition and dismissing the action with prejudice.
In this case, a Muslim state prisoner filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials at Ironwood State Prison, alleging violations of his First Amendment rights and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The claims arose from two prison policies: one limiting inmates to possessing no more than 12 ounces of scented oil and purchasing no more than 8 ounces at a time for prayer use, and another requiring inmates on lockdown to shower while wearing only boxer shorts and shower shoes, which the plaintiff said conflicted with his religious requirements for modesty and cleanliness. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's amended report and recommendation, granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The court reasoned that the oil limit policy was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests in institutional security and did not substantially burden the plaintiff's religious exercise, while the shower policy similarly did not violate his rights under the applicable standards from Turner v. Safley and RLUIPA precedents.
In Black v. Voss, petitioner challenged his civil commitment as a sexually violent predator under California's Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600 after a jury found the allegations true and the state courts affirmed. He filed a federal habeas petition claiming that the prosecution should have been required to prove a recent overt act of dangerousness, that the evidence was insufficient to establish likelihood of reoffending, and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to certain cross-examination questions. The district court, adopting the magistrate judge's report, denied the petition, holding that the state courts' rejection of these claims was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The court reasoned that California law does not require proof of a recent overt act while the offender is in custody, that the evidence supported the finding, and that any alleged deficiency in counsel's performance did not prejudice the outcome given other impeachment evidence.
