David Auer v. Jane Bidinian, in Her Official Capacity as Parole Officer California Department of Corrections

86 F.3d 1161 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. David AUER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jane BIDINIAN, in her official capacity as Parole Officer; California Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-16752. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted May 14, 1996. * Decided May 23, 1996. Before: ALARCON, BEEZER, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Former state prisoner David Auer petitions for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , challenging his state conviction for possession of a controlled substance. The district court denied Auer's petition on the ground that Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), barred federal review. We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm. 3 * As a general rule, we are precluded from reviewing Fourth Amendment claims on habeas: "[W]here the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, the Constitution does not require that a…