Michael Pratt v. Anthony Hedgpeth

Good Law
519 F. App'x 509
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 22, 201310-16028California485 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Michael Joseph Pratt appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1. Scope and Standard of Review

Habeas petition relief is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) and cannot be granted unless the state court’s adjudication of the merits of the petitioner’s claim was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States”; or (2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

Pratt filed his federal habeas petition after the effective date of AEDPA, but the California Supreme Court denied Pratt’s state habeas petition as untimely, citing In re Robbins, 18 Cal.4th 770 , 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 153, 959 P.2d 811 , 317-18 (1998). We agree with Pratt that there was no state decision on the merits of his claim and that the state waived its procedural default argument by raising it for the first time on appeal. See Franklin v. Johnson, 290 F.3d 1223, 1229-32 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, we review…

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.