N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M ARK JOHN C R OW DER ,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. JAM ES KEY,

R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 21-35192 D.C . No. 4:20-c v-05087-SM J
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington Sa lva dor M e ndoz a , Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 7, 2021 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : M c KEOW

N, C H R ISTEN, a

nd B ADE, C irc uit Judge s. Appe lla nt M ark John C rowde r a

ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his ha be a s c orpus pe t ition ba se d on his c la im of prose c utoria l m isc onduc t. He a lso



# FIL ED DEC 13 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).c ha lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a n e vide ntia

ry he aring. W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm

the distric t

c ourt’ s orde r. W e re vie w de novo a distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a fe de ra l ha

b e a s pe tition, K

ipp
v . Dav is , 971 F.3d 939, 948 (9th C ir. 2020), a n d a distric t c ourt’ s c onc lusion tha

t

“ the sta te c ourt’ s de nia l of re lie f wa s ba se d on [a n ] a de quate and indepe nde nt sta te rule of proc e dure ,” Sc ott v . Sc hriro , 567 F.3d 573, 580 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). W

he re the sta

te c ourt re a c he d a

de c i sion on the

m e rits, we m ay

not gra nt
re lie f unle ss the sta

t e c ourt’ s de c ision “wa s c ontra ry to, or involve d a

n unre a s ona

ble a p plic ation of, c le 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 theUnite d State s ,” or “ wa s ba s e d on a n unre a sona

ble de te rm i nation of thefa c t s in light of the e vide nc e pre se nte d in theStat e c o urt proc e e ding.” 2 8 U.S.C . § 2254(d). W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a n e vide ntia ry he a ring for a b use of disc re tion. Ste w art v . C ate , 757 F.3d 929, 934 (9th C ir. 2014). 1. The distric t c ourt re lie d on a proc e dura l ba r to de ny C rowde r’ s pe tition be c a

use the sta

te c ourt c onc lude d tha

t C rowde r wa i ve d his c la i m by fa iling to obje c t at tria l. C rowde r c onte nds thesta te c ourt “ m e re ly

and e rrone ously ” de e m e d his prose c utoria l m isc onduc t c la im “ wa i ve d .” Appe lle e did not a sse rt the proc e d ura l ba r a s a de fe nse , but thedistric t c ourt re ta ine d disc re tion to c onside r the
2issue “ sua

sponteto furthe r the inte re sts of c om ity , fe de ra l ism , a nd judic ia l
e ffic ie nc y .” 1 Boy d

v . Thompson , 147 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th C i r. 1998).

“ [A] fe de ra l c ourt will not revie w the m e rits of c la im s . . . tha t a sta te c ourt de c line d to he ar be c a

u se the prisone r fa i le d to a bide by a sta te proc e dura l rule ” unle ss the pe titione r shows c a use and pre

judic e . Martine

z v . Ry a n , 566 U.S. 1, 9–10 (2012). Thesta

te proc e dura l rule m

ust be “ a nonfe de ra l ground a de quate to support thejudgm e nt” an d “ firm ly e sta b l ishe d a nd c onsiste ntly

followe d” by

the sta te c o urts. Id. at 9. Although our c ourt ha s not y e t de c ide d whe the r W a shington sta te c o urts’ rule re g arding wa i ve r for c ounse l ’ s fa ilure to obje c t to proc e dura l
m isc o nduc t is a

n a de quate sta

te ba r, our pre c e de nt supports tha t it like ly is. Se e K ible r v . W alte rs , 220 F.3d 1151, 1153–54 (9th C ir. 2000) (A sta te proc e dura l rule is “ a de quate ” and “ inde pe nde nt” whe re the sta te c ourt “ spe c i fic a lly

re lie d on its proc e d ura l rule ” ; the “ rule is we ll e sta blishe d in c a se la

w” ; “ and no a

uthority ha s

1 W e have pre viously

de c line d to re ly on a proc e dura l ba r whe re the de fe nse wa s ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l, s e e , e .g. , Frank

lin v . J ohnson , 290 F.3d 1223, 1233 (9th C ir. 2002), a n d the pe titione r ha d no “ opportunity to a tte m pt to pe rsua de the distric t c ourt of thec a use for his de fa

ult a n d a ny pre judic e ,” W

indham v . Me r k le , 163 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th C ir. 1998). B ut he re , the pa rtie s we re on notic e of the re le va

nt proc e dura l ba

r be c a use the sta

te c ourts a

nd distric t c ourt e xpre s sly re lie d on proc e dura l grounds to deny re lie f to C rowde r. The re fore , we too re ly on the proc e d

ura l ba r. C f. C ole man v . Thompson , 501 U.S. 722, 732 (1991) (“ The inde pe nde nt a nd a de quat e sta

te ground doc t

rine e nsure s tha

t the Stat e s’ inte re st in c o rre c ting the ir own m ista ke s is re spe c te d in a ll fe d e ra l ha be a s c a se s.” ). 3be e n c i te d

indic ating tha

t the rule ha s be e n inc o nsiste ntly a pplie d .” ); c

f. C av anaugh v . K

inc he loe , 877 F.2d 1443, 1447–48 (9th C ir. 1989) (holding W a shington sta

te ’ s rule re ga

rding a fa ilure to obje c t to a

la c k of prope r founda

tion to a d m it prior c onvic tions wa s proc e d ura l ba r to re vie w of unde rly ing fe de ra l
c onstitutiona

l c la im). The wa ive r rule invoke d by the sta te c ourt he re a

ppe ars to be
we ll-e sta blishe d in W a shington c a se la w. Se e , e .g. , State

v . Loughbom , 470 P.3d 499, 505 (W a sh. 2020). It is a lso indepe nde nt be c a

use it doe s not re quire tha t sta t e c ourts re ly

on or inquire into fe de ra l la w. Se eC ole m an , 501 U.S. a

t 734–35. C rowde r doe s not de m o n strat e , or c ite any a uthority to sugge st, tha

t the rule is inc o nsiste ntly

a pplie d
. Ac c o rdingly , we m ay a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt pursua nt to theproc e dura l ba

r doc trine a l one . 2. W e c o nside r the m e rits of C rowde r’ s pe tition be c a use both pa

rtie s fully brie fe d the issue s. A prose c utor’ s c om m e nts viola

te a de fe nda nt’ s c onstitutiona

l rights only

if the “ c om

m e nts so infe c te d

the tria l with unfairne ss a s to m ake the re s ulting c onvic tion a de nia l of due proc e ss.” D arde n v . W ainw right , 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986) (inte rna l quota

t ion m arks om itte d ). “ B ut suc h
m isc o nduc t ‘ rise s to thele ve l of Darde n e rror only if the re is a

re a s ona ble proba b ility tha t it re nde re d the tria l funda m e nta lly unfa ir.’ ” Ford v . Pe e ry , 999

4F.3d 1214, 1224 (9th C ir. 2021) (quoting De c k v . J e nk ins , 814 F.3d 954, 985 (9th C ir. 2016)). In its a l te rnative ruling, thesta te a ppe lla te c ourt a sse s se d the prose c utor’ s
a lle ge d m isc onduc t “ in the c onte xt of thetota l a rgum e nt, theissue s in thec a se , the
e vide nc e , a

nd the instruc tions given to thejury ” to de c ide whe the r the c o nduc t

“ re sulte d in pre

judic e tha t ha d a substa ntia l like lihood of a ffe c t ing theve rdic t.” C rowde r only a

rgue s tha t sta te c ourt’ s de c i sion wa s an unre a sona ble a pplic ation of Supre m e C ourt pre c e d e nt be c a use , in his view, the a lle ge d m isc onduc t sa tisfie s the

“ pla in e rror” sta

n d ard. The sta

te c ourt’ s de c i sion wa s c onsiste nt with Darde n be c a use it c onside re d whe the r C rowde r de m onstra te d a like lihood tha

t the a lle ge d
m isc o nduc t substa

ntia lly influe nc e d the jury . Thus, it wa s not a n unre a sona

ble
a pplic ation of c le a

rly e sta b lishe d fe de ra l la

w. Se e§ 2254(d)(1). The sta te c ourt de te rm i nations we re a lso obje c tive ly re a sona b le in light of the

e v ide nc e C rowde r pre s e nte d. Se e Lambe rt v . Blodge tt , 393 F.3d 943, 972 (9th C ir. 2004) (c iting § 2254(d)(2) a

n d e xpla ining “ a

de c ision a djudic at e d on them e rits in a sta te
c ourt . . . will not be

ove rturne d

on fa c tua l grounds unle ss obje c t ive l y unre a sona ble in light of the

e vide nc e pre se nte d in thesta te -c ourt proc e e ding” (inte rna l quota tion
m arks om itte d)).

5La st, C rowde r c onte nds he should ha v e be e n a fforde d a

n e vide ntia

ry he aring. C rowde r wa s e ntitle d to a he aring if it would e

na ble him to prove“ fa c tua l
a lle gations, whic h, if true , would e ntitle[him ] to fe de ra l ha be a s re lie f.” Sc hriro v
. Landrigan , 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007). The sta te c ourt a c c e p te d

C rowde r’ s fa c tua l
a lle gations a s true and c onc lude d the a lle ge d c onduc t fe l l short of c onduc t giving rise to a m e ritorious prose c utoria l m i sc onduc t c la im
. C rowde r fa ils to de m onstra te how a he aring would re sult in fa c tua l a lle g at ions e ntitling him to re lie f. Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of C rowde r’ s re que st for a n e vide ntia ry he a ring. AFFIRM E D.

6