Vu Nguyen v. Derral Adams

MEMORANDUM

Vu Trong Nguyen (“Nguyen”), a California prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request a heat of passion or voluntary manslaughter jury instruction. Nguyen raised this claim before the California Supreme Court in a state habeas petition, which was summarily denied.

We review the district court’s denial of a habeas petition de novo. Lopez v. Thompson, 202 F.3d 1110, 1116 (9th Cir.2000). If, however, a state court denies a habeas petition on the merits (even in a summary decision), we review the petition under the more deferential standard prescribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). See 28 U.S.C § 2254(d); Harrington v. Richter, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 770, 784 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). Under AEDPA, a federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus only if the state court’s decision on the merits was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the…