Duy Pham v. Leland McEwen

MEMORANDUM

Duy Pham appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Because the denial of Pham’s ha-beas petition was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent, and because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pham’s request for ■discovery, we affirm. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(l)-(2); Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 , 131 S.Ct. 770 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).

Pham’s prosecutorial misconduct claim is not procedurally barred. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729-30 , 111 S.Ct. 2546 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). Where a state court denies a habeas petition containing multiple claims and does not “specify which claims were barred for which reasons,” the state court has not clearly and expressly relied on an independent and adequate state ground. Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 1050 (9th Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). The California Supreme Court denied Pham’s claims via a string citation to multiple cases, one of which was In re Waltreus, 62 Cal.2d 218 , 42 Cal.Rptr. 9 , 397 P.2d 1001 (1965), without indicating which…