Pendergast
Pendergast v. Newland
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Michael Pendergast, a California State prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review the district court’s denial of a habeas petition de novo. Alvarado v. Hill, 252 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.2001).
Pendergast’s habeas petition was filed after the April 24, 1996, effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), so we apply that statute to this case. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 , 117 S.Ct. 2059 , 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). Under AEDPA, in order to succeed, Pendergast must demonstrate that the state court adjudication of his claims on their merits “resulted in, a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 531 U.S. 944 , 121 S.Ct. 340 , 148 L.Ed.2d 274 (2000). We conclude that Pendergast’s claims fail to reach the standard…