United States District Court, D. Nevada
C. MAHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the court are the petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 7),
respondents' answer (ECF No. 51), and petitioner's
reply (ECF No. 52). The court finds that relief is not
warranted on the remaining ground, and the court denies the
jury trial in state district court, petitioner was convicted
of battery constituting domestic violence, battery with the
use of a deadly weapon constituting domestic violence, and
burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon. Ex. 27 (ECF
No. 13-7). Petitioner appealed, and the Nevada Supreme Court
affirmed. Ex. 43 (ECF No. 13-23). Petitioner then filed a
post-conviction habeas corpus petition in the state district
court. Ex. 50 (ECF No. 13-30). The state district court
denied the petition. Ex. 62 (ECF No. 13-42). Petitioner
appealed, and the Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed. Ex. 92
(ECF No. 14-17).
then commenced this action. The petition originally contained
nine grounds for relief. The court dismissed ground 7 because
it was procedurally defaulted, and the court found that
grounds 1 through 6 and 8 were not exhausted. ECF No. 29.
Upon petitioner's election, the court dismissed the
unexhausted grounds. ECF No. 34. Ground 9 remains.
jurists would not find debatable or wrong the court's
ruling on the dismissal of these grounds, and the court will
not issue a certificate of appealability for the dismissals
of grounds 1 through 8.
has limited the circumstances in which a federal court can
grant relief to a petitioner who is in custody pursuant to a
judgment of conviction of a state court.
An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court
shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was
adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless
the 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
in the State court proceeding.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). “By its terms § 2254(d)
bars relitigation of any claim ‘adjudicated on the
merits' in state court, subject only to the exceptions in
§§ 2254(d)(1) and (d)(2).” Harrington v.
Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 98 (2011).
Federal habeas relief may not be granted for claims subject
to § 2254(d) unless it is shown that the earlier state
court's decision “was contrary to” federal
law then clearly established in the holdings of this Court,
§ 2254(d)(1); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362,
412 (2000); or that it “involved an unreasonable
application of” such law, § 2254(d)(1); or that it
“was based on an unreasonable determination of the
facts” in light of the record before the state court,
Richter, 562 U.S. at 100. “For purposes of
§ 2254(d)(1), ‘an unreasonable application of
federal law is different from an incorrect application of
federal law.'” Id. (citation omitted).
“A state court's determination that a claim lacks
merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as
‘fairminded jurists could disagree' on the
correctness of the state court's decision.”
Id. (citation omitted).
[E]valuating whether a rule application was unreasonable
requires considering the rule's specificity. The more
general the rule, the more leeway courts have in reaching