Barcus v. NH State Prison, Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Charles Barcus
v. Civil No. 17-cv-167-PB
Warden, New Hampshire State Prison
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Charles Barcus has filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. No. 1). The petition
is here for preliminary review to determine whether Barcus’s
claims are facially valid and may proceed. See Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 cases (“§ 2254 Rules”); LR
4.3(d)(4)(A).
Background
Barcus was convicted in the Superior Court of possession of
a controlled drug with intent to distribute on April 12, 2016,
after a bench trial. See State v. Barcus, No. 218-2015-653
(N.H. Super., Rockingham Cty. Apr. 12, 2016). Barcus appealed
his conviction to the New Hampshire Supreme Court (“NHSC”) on
the grounds that the Superior Court had erroneously denied
Barcus’s motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a
warrantless search of Barcus’s hotel room. The NHSC affirmed
Case 1:17-cv-00167-PB Document 2 Filed 08/22/17 Page 1 of 4

2
the Superior Court’s decision on suppression, and Barcus’s
conviction. See State v. Barcus, No. 2016-0281, 2017 N.H. LEXIS
43, at *7, 2017 WL 1367207, at *3 (N.H. Feb. 15, 2017).
In his habeas petition before this court, Barcus asserts
that his Fourth Amendment right not to be subjected to an
unreasonable, warrantless search was violated when his hotel
room was searched. Barcus also asserts that the search of his
room was unlawful under the state constitution.
Discussion
I. Fourth Amendment Claim
“[W]here the state has provided an opportunity for full and
fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner
may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground
that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure
was introduced at his trial.” Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465,
494 (1976); see also Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 395 n.5
(2007); Sanna v. Dipaolo, 265 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2001) (Fourth
Amendment claims are not cognizable in habeas action unless
“petitioner had no realistic opportunity to litigate his Fourth
Amendment claim fully and fairly in the state system”).
Here, nothing suggests that Barcus did not have the
opportunity to raise a Fourth Amendment challenge to the search
of his hotel room. To the contrary, the record in this case
Case 1:17-cv-00167-PB Document 2 Filed 08/22/17 Page 2 of 4

3
demonstrates that Barcus did challenge the admissibility of the
evidence obtained pursuant to that search, both in a suppression
motion litigated in the Superior Court and on appeal to the
NHSC. Accordingly, Barcus’s Fourth Amendment claim is not
cognizable in this federal habeas action.
II. State Constitutional Claim
The federal habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
“‘unambiguously provides that a federal court may issue a writ
of habeas corpus to a state prisoner only on the ground that he
is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States.’” Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S.
216, 219 (2011) (citations omitted). “‘[F]ederal habeas corpus
relief does not lie for errors of state law.’” Id.
Accordingly, Barcus’s allegation that his rights under the state
constitution have been violated is not cognizable in this
federal habeas action.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the District Judge should
dismiss Barcus’s habeas petition (Doc. No. 1) in its entirety.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed
within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen day period may be extended upon
motion. Failure to file objections within the specified time
Case 1:17-cv-00167-PB Document 2 Filed 08/22/17 Page 3 of 4

4
waives the right to appeal the district court’s order. See
Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir.
2016).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
August 22, 2017
cc: Peter Scott Bratton, Esq.
Case 1:17-cv-00167-PB Document 2 Filed 08/22/17 Page 4 of 4