Douglas McShane v. Matthew Cate

MEMORANDUM

Respondent Matthew Cate appeals the district court’s conditional grant of Petitioner Douglas Brian McShane’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The facts are known to the parties. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo the district court’s grant of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Lopez v. Thompson, 202 F.3d 1110, 1116 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc). We VACATE the district court’s judgment and REMAND for further proceedings.

In Cullen v. Pinholster, the Supreme Court held that “evidence introduced in federal court has no bearing on § 2254(d)(1) review.” — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 1388 , 1400, 179 L.Ed.2d 557 (2011). “If a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by a state court, a federal habeas petitioner must overcome the limitation of § 2254(d)(1) on the record that was before that state court.” Id.; see also id. at 1400 n. 7 (noting that an unreasonable determination of fact under § 2254(d)(2) must be unreasonable “in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding,” and stating that “[t]he additional clarity of § 2254(d)(2) on this point ... does not detract from our view that § 2254(d)(1) also is plainly…