N.D.Ind.: It’s settled one can’t relitigate merits of 4A claim via 2254 habeas

This 2254 is merely an attempt to relitigate his Fourth Amendment claim in habeas, and thus it’s barred. “In his traverse, Thomas has not argued or attempted to demonstrate that there was a subversion of the hearing process in state court. Instead, he focuses on the merits of his Fourth Amendment claim and asks me to reconsider the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision, a path that is foreclosed by Stone. Hayes v. Battaglia, 403 F.3d 935, 939 (7th Cir. 2005). Thomas’s claim is simply not cognizable on federal habeas review. See e.g., Turentine v. Miller, 80 F.3d 222 at 225-226 (7th Cir. 1996) (‘We have consistently held that a claim is Stone-barred if the petitioner simply argues that the state court made a mistake in applying Fourth Amendment law.’).” Thomas v. Warden, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16347 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 1, 2019).*