Grant Balderree v. Matthew Cate

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Grant Hewitt Balderree appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review a district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition de novo, see Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.

Balderree contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to communicate with him. The state court concluded that this claim lacked merit because Balderree did not show a reasonable probability of a different outcome absent the alleged deficiency of trial counsel. The state court’s rejection of this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Strickland, v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), nor based on an unreasonable determination of facts in light of the evidence presented. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). Moreover, because any new evidence could not be considered in federal habeas proceedings, the district court properly adjudicated Balder-ree’s claim without conducting an evidentiary hearing. See Gulbrandson v. Ryan, 738 F.3d 976 , 993-94 & n. 6 (9th Cir.2013), cert. denied, —…