N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SALVADOR

A. R ODR IGUEZ, Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. DER R AL G. ADAM S, W a

rde n, R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 15-15679 D.C . No. 4:04-c v-02233-PJH
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Phy llis J. Ha

m ilton, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 2, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS, N.R . SM ITH, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Sa lva dor R odrigue z a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing his motion to
e xc use proc e dura l de fa

ult. W e a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED SEP 07 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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).In his ha be a s pe tition, R

o drigue z c la i m s tha

t his trial c ounse l re nde re d ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l (“ IAC ” ) by fa i ling to intervie w two
e y e witne sse s—

Vonre e Albe rty

and Ke nne th Ja c kson. Howe ve r, R odrigue z did not tim e ly ra ise this c la im

in sta te c ourt. The re fore , we m ay not gra nt ha be a s re lie f on R odrigue z ’ s proc e dura lly de fa ulte d IAC c la im , unle ss R o drigue z “ c a n de m onstra

te
c a use for the de fa

u l t a nd a c tua l pre

j udic e a s a re sult of thea l le ge d viola tion of fe de ra l la w.” C o le man v . Thompson , 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991). In Martine

z v . Ry an , the Supre m e C ourt e xpla ine d tha t a fe de ra l c ourt m ay find “ c a use ” to e xc use a

de fe nda nt’ s proc e dura l de fa

ult only whe n c e rta in
re quire m e nts a

re m e t. 132 S. C t. 1309, 1320 (2012). The re quire m e nt re le va

nt on this a ppe a l: the unde rly ing IAC c la im m ust be “ substa

ntia l,” m e a

n ing tha t it ha s

“ som e m e rit.” Id. at 1318–19. The sta nda rd for de te rm ining whe the r a c la im is substa ntia l is c om

pa ra ble to the sta

nda rd for issuing c e rtific ate s of a ppe a la bility , se e i d. , whe re by “ a

pe titione r m

ust show tha

t re a s ona ble jurists c ould debate whe the r . . . the pe tition should ha ve be e n re solve d in a

diffe re nt m anne r or tha

t the issue s pre se nte d

we re a de quat e to de se rve e nc oura ge m e nt to proc e e d furthe r,” Mille r-El v . C

oc k re ll , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (inte rna l quota

tion m a rks a nd
a lte ration omitte d).

2Unde r Stric k land v . W ashington , to suc c e e d on a n IAC c la i m , a

prisone r

“ m ust show tha

t c ounse l’ s pe rform anc e wa s de fic ie nt” and “ that the de fic ie nt pe rform a nc e pre judic e d the de fe nse .” 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Thus, “ [a ] n IAC
c la im ha s m e rit whe re (1) c ounse l’ s ‘ pe rform a n c e wa s unre a sona

ble unde r pre v a i ling profe ssiona l sta nda rds,’ and (2) ‘ the re is a

re a sona ble proba bility tha t but for c ounse l’ s unprofe ssiona l e rrors, the re sult would ha ve be e n diffe re nt.’ ” C ook v . Ry an , 688 F.3d 598, 610 (9th C ir. 2012) (quoting Hasan v . Galaza , 254 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th C ir. 2001)). Eve n if we we re to a ssum e that tria l c ounse l’ s pe rform anc e wa s de fic ie nt, R odrigue z is still not e

ntitle d to re l ie f from

his proc e dura l de fa

ult, be c a use (a s the distric t c o urt de te rm ine d) he ha s not e vide n c e d a substa ntia l c la im

tha t tria l
c ounse l’ s pe rform an c e re sulte d in pre judic e at tria l
. Se eHurle

s v . Ry an , 752 F.3d 768, 782 (9th C ir. 2014). Thee y e witne ss a c c ounts of Alberty and Ja c kson would have be e n c um ulat i ve to som e of the e vide nc e a lre a dy pre se nte d at tria l a

nd ofte n inc o nsiste nt with Rodrigue z ’ s own te stim ony . Furthe r, the ir te stim onie s would not have supporte d R odrigue z ’ s c la im tha t the use of de a dly

forc e wa s justifie d, a

nd
ne ithe r ha d sugge ste d the y would bewilling to te stify on be ha lf of the de fe n se at the t im e of tria l
.

3Im

porta ntly , the gove rnm e nt’ s c a s e a ga inst Rodrigue z wa s a l so strong. R odrigue z a dm itte d tha

t he fire d a

gun a t a group of pe ople , de spite not obse rving the m c arry i ng a

ny we a pons. Although he

c la im e d he fire d the we a

pon only in a

n atte m pt to sc are the group off, indepe nde nt witne sse s te stifie d tha t he fire d dire c t ly
at the group with his a

rm pa ra lle l to theground, a

nd the c orone r’ s pre lim ina ry te stim ony e sta blishe d “ that the bulle t e nte re d the vic tim ’ s e ar and tra ve le d stra ight through thebra in a

t ne ithe r an up or down a

ngle .” Ja c k son a

nd Albe rty did not se e R odrigue z fire the we a

pon a nd, the re fore , c ould not ha ve re butte d

the gove rnm e nt’ s e v ide nc e tha t R odrigue z fire d dire c tly at the group. Having c onc lude d tha

t R odrigue z fa ils to de m onstra te c a use unde r M

artine z , we ne e d not sepa

rate ly inquire whe the r he c an de m o nstra te pre judic e unde r C ole man . AFFIRM E D.

4