The opinion of the court was delivered by: Susan Illston United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Jose G. Diaz-Valencia, a California prisoner incarcerated at the Pleasant Valley State Prison, has filed this pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is now before the court for consideration of the merits of the habeas petition. For the reasons discussed below, the petition will be denied.
On February 19, 2002, the San Jose police put Diaz-Valencia's apartment under surveillance after receiving a tip that large quantities of narcotics and cash were there and that a home invasion robbery might occur that evening. Police officers stopped the apparent robbers before they entered the building. Two officers later went to the apartment to speak to the occupant, Diaz-Valencia. After questioning Diaz-Valencia for a while, an officer asked and obtained permission to look in his locked bedroom. The officer discovered several kilos of cocaine and approximately $117,000 cash in Diaz-Valencia's bedroom.
Following a jury trial in Santa Clara County Superior Court, Diaz-Valencia was convicted of possession of cocaine for sale and possession of funds in excess of $100,000 for purchase of a controlled substance. Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 11351, 11370.6. The jury found that the quantity of cocaine exceeded one kilogram, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11370.4(a), and that Diaz-Valencia was personally armed with a firearm, Cal. Penal Code § 12022(c). On November 21, 2002, he was sentenced to a term of ten years in state prison.
The California Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction and the California Supreme Court denied his petition for review. He then filed this action, seeking a writ of habeas corpus.
The lone claim remaining for adjudication is Diaz-Valencia's claim that his rights under the Fifth Amendment and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), were violated when he was subjected to a custodial interrogation without first being advised of his Miranda rights. The court ordered respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. Respondent filed an answer and petitioner filed a traverse. The matter is now ready for a decision on the merits.
This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this habeas action for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This action is in the proper venue because the challenged conviction occurred in Santa Clara County, California, within this judicial district. 28 U.S.C. §§ 84, 2241(d).
Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement are required first to exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), ...