Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Barrera v. Williams

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 13, 2018

HIGINIO BARRERA, Petitioner,
v.
BRIAN WILLIAMS, SR., et al., Respondents.

          ORDER

          JAMES C. MAHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before 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 petition.

         After a 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).

         Petitioner 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.

         Reasonable 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.

         Congress 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; or
(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, § 2254(d)(2).

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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.