Johnnie Peraza v. Rosanne Campbell
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Johnnie Ray Peraza appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. Peraza contends that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing and discovery on three claims for habeas relief: (1) actual innocence; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel; and (3) prosecutorial misconduct. The district court denied Peraza’s request for an evidentiary hearing and discovery. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We affirm.
After the parties filed opening and response briefs but before oral argument, the Supreme Court decided Cullen v. Pinholster, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1388 , 179 L.Ed.2d 557 (2011). The Court held that “review under [28 U.S.C.] § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits” and that “evidence introduced in federal court has no bearing on § 2254(d)(1) review.” Id. at 1398, 1400. Because Pinholster “changed the aperture for consideration of new evidence” in federal habeas courts, Stokley v. Ryan, 659 F.3d 802, 809 (9th Cir.2011), we asked the parties to address the significance of Pin-holster at oral argument.