Rufus Shaw v. Randy Grounds

MEMORANDUM

Rufus Shaw, a California state prisoner, seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 based upon the state court’s denial of his oral motion to represent himself in order to file a motion for new trial based on juror misconduct or jury tampering. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review the district court’s decision to grant or deny the petition de novo and review its factual findings for clear error. Melendez v. Pliler, 288 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir.2002).

Shaw’s motion was made after a jury convicted him of two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder in 2003. His petition, filed after April 24, 1996, is subject to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). See Lockhart v. Terhune, 250 F.3d 1223, 1228 (9th Cir.2001). Under AEDPA, the court may grant Shaw’s petition only if the state court’s decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254…