Micah Harris v. M. Martel

MEMORANDUM

Micah Harris, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1), Harris must show that the California Court of Appeal’s decision was contrary to, or an objectively unreasonable application of, federal law. See Cullen v. Pinholster, — U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398-99 , 179 L.Ed.2d 557 (2011). We review the district court’s decision de novo, Schultz v. Tilton, 659 F.3d 941, 942 (9th Cir.2011) (per curiam), and we affirm.

First, Harris argues that the California Court of Appeal unreasonably applied established federal law in rejecting the claim that testimony by two witnesses about their own sexual encounters with him, amounting to prior uncharged sexual offenses, violated his federal due process rights. “Our precedent squarely forecloses this argument.” Mejia v. Garcia, 534 F.3d 1036, 1046 (9th Cir.2008).

Second, Harris argues that the California appellate court unreasonably applied established federal law in rejecting his claim that the trial court’s restrictions on his cross-examination of one of these witnesses about her relationship with an ex-boyfriend violated his Sixth…