Richard Pruitt v. Jackie Crawford

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Richard Hollen Pruitt appeals from the denial of his habeas petition on the merits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258 , and we affirm.

We review the denial of Pruitt’s habeas petition de novo. Brown v. Horell, 644 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir.2011). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) governs this matter. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 322 , 117 S.Ct. 2059 , 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). We cannot grant federal habeas relief absent a showing that the Nevada Supreme Court’s denial of Pruitt’s claims (1) was contrary to clearly established Supreme Court case law, (2) involved an unreasonable application of that law or (3) was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the record before the state court. Harrington v. Richter, — U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 770, 785 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)). Pruitt has failed to establish such an error.

The Ntevada Supreme Court did not contravene clearly established Supreme Court case law when it upheld the exclusion of the victim’s prior sexual activity as harassing. Cf. Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145, 149 , 111 S.Ct. 1743 , 114 L.Ed.2d 205 (1991)…