Ty Lopes v. Rosanne Campbell

MEMORANDUM

None of Lopes’s numerous claims to this court warrants habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . His claims that the prosecutor illegally re-filed the rape and special circumstance charges and the trial court erroneously denied motions under California Penal Code § 995 and § 1118.1 are not properly before us because they were never certified for appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(1); Mendez v. Knowles, 556 F.3d 757, 770-71 (9th Cir.2009). Furthermore, these are state law claims that are not cognizable on federal habeas review. See § 2254(a); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 , 112 S.Ct. 475 , 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991). Lopes’s prosecutorial misconduct claim in relation to the testimony of Officer Erb also does not support habeas relief because Lopes never exhausted the claim by presenting it to a state court. See § 2254(b)(1); Scott v. Schriro, 567 F.3d 573, 582 (9th Cir.2009). We also deny this claim on the merits. See § 2254(b)(2). Because Lopes presents no evidence that Officer Erb’s testimony was false or that the prosecutor knew or should have known it was false, see Napue v. Illinois, 860 U.S. 264 , 265, 79 S.Ct. 1173 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959); Schad v. Ryan, 606 F.3d…