N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
DAVID SC OTT LISTON,

Pe t i tione r - Appe l la

nt,
v. M ARK NOOTH,

R e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-35502 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-01430-JE
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M ic ha e l H. Sim on, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 8, 2016 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : FISHER , B ER

ZON a nd WATFORD, C irc u it Judge s. Pe titioner David Sc ott Liston a ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dism issing his petition for writ of ha be a s c orpus. W e hav e jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . §§ 1291 a

nd 2253, were vie w de novo, se e Dy e r v . Hornbe c k, 706 F.3d 1134, 1137 (9th C ir. 2013), a n d we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED APR 01 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* T his disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Liston rai se d se ve ra l ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of tria l c ounse l (IATC ) c la im s in his sta t e c ourt initial -re vie w c olla te ra l proc e e dings, 1 re c e ive d a judgm e nt on the
m e rits, the n subse que ntly de fa ulte d thosec l a im s by

fa iling to raise the m

on a ppe a l. Liston now petitions for ha be a s re lie f in fe de ra l c ourt ba se d on thede fa ulte d IATC
c la im s, a nd se e ks to e sta

blish c a use for the ir de fa

ult unde r Martine

z v . Ry an , 132 S. C t. 1309 (2012). Liston posits two re l ate d the orie s tha

t would bring his de fa

ult within Martine

z ’ s “ na rrow e xc e ption”for “ [i] n a de quate a s sista nc e of c ounse l at initial-re vie w c olla

te ra l proc e e dings.” Id. at 1315. 1. First, a lthough Liston’ s IATC c la im s we re proc e dura lly de fa ulte d only whe n his a

ppe lla te post-c onvic tion c ounse l fa ile d to ra ise the m on a ppe a l from

his initial-re vie w c olla

te ra l proc e e dings, hec onte nds “ a ny de fic i e nc y at the PC R
a ppe lla te le ve l is a

ttributa b le to PC R

tria l c ounse l’ s fa ilure to de ve lop the unde rly ing c la i m s.” 2 B ut he doe s not de m onstra te how his initia

l -re vie w c ounse l’ s a lle ge d e rrors a c tua lly

c a use d the de fa

ult of his IATCc la im s at the a ppe lla t e

1 Unde r M

artine z v . Ry an , the te rm

“ initial-re vie w c olla

te ra l proc e e dings” re fe rs to “ c olla

te ra l proc e e dings whic h providethe first oc c a sion to rai se a c la im of ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e at tria l.” 132 S. C t. 1309, 1315 (2012). 2 Liston wa s re pre se nte d by diffe re nt c ounse l in theinitial-re vie w a nd a ppe lla te c o lla t e ra l proc e e dings. 2c olla

te ra l re vie w sta ge . 3 W e the re fore ne e d not de c ide whe the r Martine z c ould
e xc use a proc e dura l de fa

ult subse que nt to theinitial-re vie wc olla t e ra l proc e e dings whe n a pe titioner is a

ble to show it wa s c a

u se d by the ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of initial-re vie w c ounse l. Eve n if tha t we re the c a se , Liston’ s c onc lusory a sse rtion would still be

insuffic ie nt. 2. Alte rnative ly , Liston c onte nds his initia l-re v ie w c ounse l’ s de fic ie nt pe rform a nc e c a u se d his IATC c la im s to bee ffe c tive ly de fa ulte d at the initialre vie w sta ge . Although Liston a dm its his initia

l-re vie w c ounse l raise d the IATC
c la im s, he argue s tha

t be c a u se c ounse l fa ile d to a de quate ly de v e lop the c l a im s with supporting evide nc e , the initial-re vie w c olla te ra l proc e e dings we re not “ suffic ie nt to e n sure tha

t prope r c onside ration wa s give n to a substa ntia l c la im .” Id. at

1318. Dic k e ns v . Ry an , 740 F.3d 1302 (9th C i r. 2014) (e n ba nc ), he ld a pe titioner c an e sta blish tha t a “pre v iously

e xha uste d IAC c l a im ” wa s proc e d ura lly de fa ulte d
at the initial-re vie wsta ge “ if ne w fa c tua l a l le gations e ithe r funda m e nta lly a lte r the le ga l c l a im

a lre a dy c onside re d by

the sta t e c ourts, or pla c e the c a se in a

3 Eve n if the distric t c ourt ha d gra nte d Liston’ s re que st for a

n e vide ntia ry he aring on theissueof c a use , his pla

n to “p re se nt e xpe rt te s tim ony on thesta

nda rd of c are ne c e ssa

ry in post-c onvic tion c a se s” and “ c a ll post-c o nvic tion c ounse l to te stify c onc e rning there a sons tha t the c l a im s we re not fully de ve lope d at the post-c onvic tion trial ” c ould not ha ve e sta b lishe d the a c tua l c a

use of the distinc t fa ilure of his appe llate post-c onvic tion c o unse l to ra ise the IATC c la im s on a ppe a l. 3signific antly diffe re nt a nd stronge r e vide ntia

ry posture tha

n it wa s whe n the sta

te c ourts c onside re d it.” Id. at 1318-19 (c ita tions a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks
om i tte d). If Liston’ s fe de ra l ha be a s pe tition showe d

the supporting evide nc e his initial-re vie w c ounse l a lle ge dly fa ile d to de ve lop would be suffic ie nt to

“ funda m e nta lly a lte r” the c la i m s he pre se nte d in sta te c ourt, his new ly

e nha nc e d IATC c la im s m ight qualify unde r Dic k

e ns a s proc e dura lly

de fa ulte d in theinitialre vie w c o lla

te ra l proc e e dings. B ut be c a use Liston’ s pe t ition m a

k e s no ne w fa c tua l
a lle gations wha

tsoe v e r and provide s no re a son to be lie v e he ha s a “ ne w” c la im unde r Dic k

e ns , he ha s not e sta

blishe d proc e dura l de fa

ult a t the initial -re vie w sta ge . Ac c ordingly , Liston c annot de m onstra te c a u se to e xc use his proc e dura l de fa ult, so fe d e ra l ha

be a s re vie w of his IATC c la im s is ba rre d. Se eC

ole m an v . Thompson , 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991). AFFIRM E D.

4