Hill

(HC) Wroe v. Hill

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 22, 20242:21-cv-00413California8,014 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES KEVIN WROE, No. 2:21-CV-0413-DJC-DMC-P 12 Petitioner,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

13 v. 14 RICK HILL, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with retained counsel, brings this petition 18 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court are 19 Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, Respondent’s answer, ECF No. 17, 20 and Petitioner’s traverse, ECF No. 21. 21 Because this action was filed after April 26, 1996, the provisions of the 22 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) are presumptively applicable. 23 See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997); Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. (Beeler), 128 24 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1099 (1998). Under AEDPA, federal 25 habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) is not available for any claim decided on the merits in 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 state court proceedings unless the…

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.