Streets v. Secretary Department of Corrections

3 Citing cases

  1. Sheffield v. Sec'y, DOC

    Case No. 3:14-cv-694-J-39PDB (M.D. Fla. Jul. 12, 2016)

    See Hearn v. Florida, 326 F. App'x 519, 522 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (finding the district court erred in concluding that Stone foreclosed review of the claim because the state court failed to make essential findings of fact). Under the principles of Stone v. Powell, federal habeas review of Petitioner's claim is precluded. See Streets v. Sec'yDep't of Corr., No. 8:10-cv-1131-T-33TGW, 2011 WL 3171263, at *12 (M.D. Fla. July 27, 2011) (finding "Stone bars federal habeas review" of the Fourth Amendment claim when "Florida clearly afforded [Petitioner] a full and fair opportunity to litigate" his claim); Mincey v. Head, 206 F.3d 1106, 1125-26 (11th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 926 (2001). Thus, ground one, asserting a Fourth Amendment violation, is barred and will not be addressed by this Court.

  2. McDuffie v. Sec'y, DOC

    Case No. 3:10-cv-1012-J-37MCR (M.D. Fla. Nov. 13, 2012)

    The trial court made explicit findings on matters essential to the Fourth Amendment issue. Under the principles of Stone v. Powell, federal habeas review of Petitioner's claim is precluded. See Streets v. Sec'y Dep't of Corr., No. 8:10-cv-1131-T-33TGW, 2011 WL 3171263, at *12 (M.D. Fla. July 27, 2011) (finding "Stone bars federal habeas review" of the Fourth Amendment claim when "Florida clearly afforded [Petitioner] a full and fair opportunity to litigate" his claim). Thus, ground one, asserting a Fourth Amendment violation, is barred and will not be addressed by this Court.

  3. Boyd v. Sec'y, DOC

    Case No. 3:11-cv-67-J-37JRK (M.D. Fla. Nov. 13, 2012)

    Under the principles of Stone v. Powell, federal habeas review of Petitioner's claim is precluded. See Streets v. Sec'y Dep't of Corr. , No. 8:10-cv-1131-T-33TGW, 2011 WL 3171263, at *12 (M.D. Fla. July 27, 2011) (finding "Stone bars federal habeas review" of a Fourth Amendment claim when "Florida clearly afforded [Petitioner] a full and fair opportunity to litigate" the claim). Thus, ground one, asserting a Fourth Amendment violation, is barred and will not be addressed by this Court.