Mendez

Mendez v. Roe

Good Law
88 F. App'x 165
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 21, 2004No. 02-56372; D.C. No. CV-98-01816-JNK/RTBCalifornia938 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Javier Mendez, a.k.a. Gilberto Benitez, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

Because Mendez filed his federal habeas petition after April 24, 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) applies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ; Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327-36 , 117 S.Ct. 2059 , 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). AEDPA dictates that we review de novo the district court’s denial of Mendez’s habeas petition, see Avila v. Galaza, 297 F.3d 911 , 914 n. 1 (9th Cir.2002), cert. dismissed, 538 U.S. 919 , 123 S.Ct. 1571 , 155 L.Ed.2d 308 (2003), but “[t]he district court’s factual findings in support of the denial ... must be upheld unless clearly erroneous.” Solis v. Garcia, 219 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir.2000). Under AEDPA, federal courts may grant a writ of habeas corpus only if the state court ruling “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 *167 States,” or…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.