NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT JESUS RIVAS, ) No. 10-56615 ) Pe titione r - Appe lla

nt, ) D.C . No. 2:09-c v-02200-JHN-DTB

) v. ) M EM OR A NDUM * ) M ATTHEW

L. C A TE, W arde n, ) ) R e sponde nt - Appe l le e . ) )

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Ja c que line H. Nguy e n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 4, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ a

nd GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s, a

nd ZOUHAR

Y, ** Distric t Judge
. Je sus Riva s a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his pe tition for a writ of ha be a s c orpus. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254. W e a ffirm
. R iva s a sse rts tha

t his rights unde

r the Sixth a

nd Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nts to



# FIL ED MAR 12 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he Honora

ble Ja c k Zouha ry , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de signa tion.the U nite d State s C o nstitution we re viola t e d whe n the sta

te c ourts e x c lude d
e vide nc e re ga

rding Riva s’ post-tra

um atic stre s s disorde r (PTSD) de fe nse to the
m urde r an d othe r c h arge s a g a inst him . W e disa g re e . R iva s first insists tha

t we should a

p ply a ba la nc ing te st de ve l ope d by

our c ourt to a sse s s whe the r the e xc lusion de prive d him of a c om ple te de fe nse . Se e M ille r v. Sta gne r, 757 F.2d 988, 994–95 (9th C ir. 1985); se e a lso Pe rry v. R ushe n, 713 F.2d 1447, 1452–53 (9th C ir. 1983). Heis wrong. W e m u st a pply “ c l e arly e sta

blishe d Fe de ra l la

w, a s de te rm ine d by

the Supre m e C ourt of the Unite d State s .” 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1); se e a lso W illia m s v. Tay lor, 529 U.S. 362, 412, 120 S. C t. 1495, 1523, 146 L. Ed. 2d 389 (2000). W e m ust not c onside r c irc uit la w tha t se e ks to “re fine or sha

rpe n a ge ne ra l princ iple of Supre m e C ourt jurispruden c e into a spe c ific le ga l rule tha

t [the ] C ourt ha s not
announc e d.” M arsha ll v. Rodge rs, __ U.S. __, __ ,133 S. Ct. 1446, 1450, 185 L. Ed. 2d 540 (2013) (per c uriam ). That pre c lude s the a pplic ation of c i rc uit pre c e de nts tha

t c onve rt the C ourt’ s “ highly ge n e ra liz e d” sta

nda rds into a n

“ e l a borate , m ultistep te st” tha

t the C ourt ha s not a dopte d. Pa rke r v. M atthe ws, __ U.S. __, __, 132 S. C t. 2148, 2155, 183 L. Ed. 2d 32 (2012) (pe r c uriam ). B e c a

use of those stric ture s we have he ld, in a c a se whe re e xpe rt witne ss e vide nc e wa s e xc lude d, tha

t M ille r is “ a

c re ation of c irc uit la

w” and “ we c annot fa

u lt the sta te 2a

ppe lla te c o urt” unle ss it viola

te s Supre m e C ourt pre c e de n t. M ose s v. Pa yne , 555 F.3d 742, 759 (9th C ir. 2009). The sta te c ourts e xc lude d the m e nta l de fe n se pre m ise d on c hronic PTSD be c a use the y de te rm ine d tha

t wha t wa s re fle c te d in the e xpe rt’ s we ak re port wa s unhe lpful a

nd did not eve n indic ate how PTSD pre v e nte d R iva s from form ing the
re quisitem e nta l sta

te . C a lifornia

la w prohibits a

ge ne ra l de fe nse of dim inishe d
c a pa c ity . C a l. Pe na l C o d e § 28. W ithout a ne xus be twe e n the disorde r and R iva s’ spe c ific inte nt, the dia gnosis of c hronic PTSD and the e vide n c e of what ha p pe ne d in El Sa l va dor m ore tha

n twe n ty y e ars e arlie r we re e x c luda ble
. Those e x c l usions
we re not simila

r to the rare insta

nc e s 1 whe re the Supre m e C ourt ha s found a viola tion of theC onstitution afte r ba la nc ing a sta te ’ s inte re st in e xc luding c e rta in kinds of e vide nc e a g a inst thede fe nda nt’ s inte re st in pre se nting a c om ple te de fe nse . 2 Thus, we c annot sa y that the re wa s a

viola t ion of theC onstitution.

1 Se e Ne va da v. Ja c kson, __ U.S. __, __, 133 S. C t. 1990, 1992, 186 L. Ed. 2d 62 (2013) (pe r c uriam ) (“ Only rare ly hav e we he ld tha

t the right to pre se nt a c om ple t e de fe nse wa s viola

te d by the e xc lusion of de fe nse e vide nc e unde r a sta te rule of e vide nc e .” ); se e a lso Unite d State s v. Sc he ffe r, 523 U.S. 303, 308–09, 118 S. C t. 1261, 1264–65, 140 L. Ed. 2d 413 (1998).

2 Se e Holm e s v. South C arolina , 547 U.S. 319, 330–31, 126 S. C t. 1727, 1734–35, 164 L. Ed. 2d 503 (2006); C rane v. Ke ntuc ky , 476 U.S. 683, 689–91, 106 S. C t. 2142, 2146–47, 90 L. Ed. 2d 636 (1986); C h am b e rs v. M ississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302–03, 93 S. C t. 1038, 1049, 35 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1973); W a shington v. (c ontinue d...) 3M ore o ve r, e ve n if e xc luding thee v ide nc e wa s e rror, it wa s ha rm l e ss due to the
e xte nsive e vide n c e tha

t R iva s form e d m a lic e a fore thought. Se e B re c h t v. Abraham son, 507 U.S. 619, 623, 113 S. C t . 1710, 1714, 123 L. Ed. 2d 353 (1993); M ose s , 555 F.3d a

t 760. AFFIRM ED.

2 (...c ontinue d) Te xa s, 388 U.S. 14, 22–23, 87 S. C t. 1920, 1925, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1019 (1967); c f. R oc k v. Arka

nsa s, 483 U.S. 44, 61, 107 S. Ct . 2704, 2714, 97 L. Ed. 2d 37 (1987). 4