Fuentez

MEMORANDUM *

Tommy Fuentez appeals the federal district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 *967 U.S.C. § 2253 and reviews a district court’s denial of a § 2254 habeas petition de novo. See Tanner v. McDaniel, 493 F.3d 1135, 1139 (9th Cir.2007).

Fuentez’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not considered by the California courts on its merits. When a state court does not rule on the merits of a habeas claim, federal courts cannot give deference to the state court findings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). 1 A different, less stringent standard of review applies to habeas claims that were not decided on the merits by a state court. See Killian v. Poole, 282 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir.2002). Federal courts review legal issues de novo and factual issues for clear error when a state court has not considered a claim on the merits. See id.

Here, the district court erroneously reviewed the California proceedings to determine whether the state court decisions were contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

The proper…