Patterson
Patterson v. Bartlett
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Appellant Tobi Patterson appeals the district court’s dismissal of his habeas corpus petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Patterson attacks his convictions in two Oregon counties on rape, sexual abuse and other related charges. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Benn v. Lambert, 283 F.3d 1040, 1051 (9th Cir.2002). We review the district court’s decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion. Downs v. Hoyt, 232 F.3d 1031, 1041 (9th Cir.2000).
We need not determine whether the district court erred in concluding that the evidence necessary to support Patterson’s claim of actual innocence must be newly discovered, rather than newly presented to the court, because even if we were to consider all of the affidavits Patterson submitted, we would conclude that he has not shown sufficient evidence of actual innocence under Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 , 115 S.Ct. 851 , 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995), to excuse the procedural default of his ineffective assistance of counsel and due process claims.