United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for
a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Pending before the court are petitioner's petition for a
writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1), respondent's answer
(ECF No. 12), and petitioner's traverse (ECF No. 15).
state court recited the following facts, and petitioner has
not offered any clear and convincing evidence to rebut the
presumption that these facts are correct:
Petitioner, an inmate at High Desert State Prison, challenges
disciplinary proceedings had while he was incarcerated at an
out-of-state California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation [CDCR] facility. In those proceedings he was
found guilty of possession of an inmate-manufactured weapon.
The weapon was discovered inside a Brother typewriter
belonging to petitioner, together with other items of
contraband. The record of proceedings is not clear as to the
sequence in which the weapon and other items of contraband
were discovered and the petition attempts to raise doubts as
to the timeline thereof as separate cell search receipts were
generated as the examination of petitioner's typewriter
proceeded. . . .
ECF No. 1, pg. 11; ECF No. 12-2, pg. 2.
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the
California Superior Court of Lassen County. The Superior
Court denied Lee's petition, finding no merit in
petitioner's argument that his due process rights were
violated. See ECF No. 1, pg. 11. Lee then filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the California Court
of Appeal and the California Supreme Court raising the same
claims as in his petition before the Superior Court, both of
which were summarily denied. Id. at 12-13.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
this action was filed after April 26, 1996, the provisions of
the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(“AEDPA”) are presumptively applicable. See
Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997); Calderon
v. United States Dist. Ct. (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1287
(9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1099 (1998).
The AEDPA does not, however, apply in all circumstances. When
it is clear that a state court has not reached the
merits of a petitioner's claim, because it was not raised
in state court or because the court denied it on procedural
grounds, the AEDPA deference scheme does not apply and a
federal habeas court must review the claim de novo. See
Pirtle v. Morgan, 313 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding
that the AEDPA did not apply where Washington Supreme Court
refused to reach petitioner's claim under its
“re-litigation rule”); see also Killian v.
Poole, 282 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding
that, where state court denied petitioner an evidentiary
hearing on perjury claim, AEDPA did not apply because
evidence of the perjury was adduced only at the evidentiary
hearing in federal court); Appel v. Horn, 250 F.3d
203, 210 (3d Cir.2001) (reviewing petition de novo where
state court had issued a ruling on the merits of a related
claim, but not the claim alleged by petitioner). When the
state court does not reach the merits of a claim,
“concerns about comity and federalism . . . do not
exist.” Pirtle, 313 F.3d at 1167.
AEDPA is applicable, federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d) is not available for any claim decided on the
merits in state court proceedings unless the state
court's adjudication of the claim:
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved
an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal
law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States;
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented