FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
April 13, 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
RICHARD THORNTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 15-1225
(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-00432-LTB)
BARRY GOODRICH, Warden, BCCF; (D. Colo.)
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Richard Thornton appeals the district court’s denial of a § 2254
habeas petition in which he challenged his state court convictions for two drug-
related crimes.
In his federal habeas petition, Petitioner raised a single claim for relief,
which was based on the state courts’ rejection of his motion to suppress evidence
obtained as the result of a traffic stop and search of his vehicle. The federal
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
district court rejected this claim pursuant to Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976),
which holds that “where 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.” Id. at 494
(footnote omitted). Based on this rule, the district court dismissed Petitioner’s
habeas petition with prejudice. In so doing, the district court did not address or
consider Petitioner’s argument that the Stone rule should not bar his claim for
habeas relief because the state courts handled his Fourth Amendment claim in
such a way that he cannot be considered to have received a “full and fair”
opportunity to litigate this claim.
A judge of this court concluded that Petitioner’s allegations were sufficient
to raise a reasonably debatable question as to whether Petitioner received a full
and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim. The judge
accordingly granted Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and
ordered Respondents to file a response brief addressing this question.
Respondents have now filed a response brief, in which they suggest that the
case should be remanded for the district court to address the Stone issue after
reviewing the state court record, which was not considered by the district court
before and is not included in the record before us on appeal. We agree that this
would be the most appropriate course of action. We will accordingly remand this
-2-
case for the district court to consider this issue with the benefit of the state court
record and full briefing from both parties.
Petitioner has filed several motions with this court, including a motion for
an evidentiary hearing and for the appointment of counsel to represent him on
appeal, a motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief, a motion to replace
lost files, and a motion to expand the record. Because we are remanding this case
for further consideration by the district court, none of the requested relief is
necessary to our resolution of this appeal. We will therefore deny all of these
motions. As necessary, appropriate motions may be filed in the district court
proceedings on remand.
The district court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s § 2254 habeas petition is
REVERSED and REMANDED for further consideration. We GRANT
Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. All other pending
motions are DENIED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-3-