From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Broussard v. Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 19, 2013
1:12-cv-01040 MJS HC (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2013)

Opinion

1:12-cv-01040 MJS HC

03-19-2013

CURLEY JOHN BROUSSARD, JR., Petitioner, v. MATTHEW CATE, Director, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS


(Doc. 60)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On July 11, 2012, Petitioner filed a motion to suppress and return evidence under California Penal Code § 1538.5. (ECF No. 60.)

The motion to suppress is DENIED.

Petitioner's motion requests relief from evidentiary rulings made in the state court. That is not the type of relief anticipated on habeas review. The remedy here, if Petitioner makes a sufficient showing, will be to order Petitioner's conditional release. See Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 741-742 (9th Cir. 2008). The Court shall review whether Petitioner constitutional rights were violated at trial, but it will not otherwise address evidentiary findings or rulings made by the trial court.

Accordingly, Petitioner's motion to suppress is DENIED. (ECF No. 60.) IT IS SO ORDERED.

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Broussard v. Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 19, 2013
1:12-cv-01040 MJS HC (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2013)
Case details for

Broussard v. Cate

Case Details

Full title:CURLEY JOHN BROUSSARD, JR., Petitioner, v. MATTHEW CATE, Director…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 19, 2013

Citations

1:12-cv-01040 MJS HC (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2013)