Moore v. Nevada Attorney General

MEMORANDUM

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253 to review the denial of Artis Moore’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We review the district court’s denial of a habeas petition de novo. White v. Martel, 601 F.3d 882, 883 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam). We affirm the district court’s denial of Moore’s habeas petition. We reverse the district court’s decision that all of Moore’s claims were exhausted and dismiss the unexhausted claim.

In order to obtain relief, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) requires Moore to show that the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

1. Under the “doubly deferential” standard of Strickland, and AEDPA, Cullen v. Pinholster, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1403 , 179 L.Ed.2d 557 (2011) (quoting Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 , 129 S.Ct. 1411, 1413 , 173 L.Ed.2d 251 (2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted), we cannot say that it was unreasonable for the Nevada Supreme Court to determine that counsel’s decisions not to investigate Moore’s intellectual capacity and not to call Moore’s family member…