Thi s di s po s i t i on i s no t a pp r op r i a t e f or pu bl i c a t i on a nd i s no t pr e c e de nt e xc e pt as * pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R
. 36- 3. T he panel un ani m ou sl y f i nd s thi s c as e s ui t abl e f

or deci si on w i tho utoral ** ar gu m ent . F ed. R
. A pp . P
. 34 (a )( 2). T he H onor a bl e E dw a r d R
. K or m a n, S e ni orU ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f ort he *** E a s t e r n D i s tr i c tof

N e w Y or k, s i t t i ng by de s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON * UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T

L UK E M. HU NT ON , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v. STEPH EN SI N CLA I R, R es po nd ent -A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 35044 D. C
. No
. 2 : 0 6
- C V- 0 0 0 5 4
- F VS

ME MOR AN DU M

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f ort he E a s t e r n D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on F r e d V a n S i c kl e , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i t t e d J ul y 12, 2011 ** S e a t t l e , W a s hi ngt on B e f o r e : C L I F T ON a n d N. R
. S MI T H, C i r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n d KO R MAN, D i stri ct *** Judg e. L uk e M
. H un t on appeal s f rom the deni al of hi s pet i t i on for aw ri tof habeas
c orpus f i l e d i n t he U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tC our t f or the E a s t e r n D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on. 

# FI LED
JU L 26 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

W e a ss um e the part i es ’ fa m i l i ar i t y w i th t he fa ct s a nd procedural hi st ory of thi s c as e. B ri ef l y, t he pet i t i on ar i se s o utof hi s c on vi ct i on for bank rob bery i n W as hi ng t on S t at e. O n hi s d i rect ap pe a l t o t he W a s hi ngt on C our tof A ppe a l s , H unt on a l l e ge d t ha tt he prosec ut i on had fai l ed t o t i m el y di sc l ose B r ady m a te r ia l. T he W as hi ngt on C our tof A ppe a l s obs e r ve d tha t“ M r . H unt on m a y ha ve a p oi nt , ” how e ve ri the l d tha t“ t he f a c tu a l b a s is f

o rh is c la im c a n n o t b e e x a m in e d o n t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e th is c o u r t. See Stat e v . C r ane , 116 W n. 2d 315, 335, 80 4 P
. 2 d 1 0 ( 1991) ( r e vi e w i s l i m i t e d t o the
a ppe l l a t e r e c or d)
. ” T he S upr e m e C our tof W a s hi ngt on de ni e d r e vi e w on O c t obe r6, 2004. H un t on then sou gh ta per sonal re stra i ntpet i t i on , w hi ch i s a form of coll ater al at t ack o n th e j u d g m en t o f co n v i ct i o n , th at i s fi l ed o ri g i n al l y i n th e C o u rt o f A p p eal s. Se e , e . g. , Wa s h
. R e v . C o d e An n . § 1 0
. 7 3
. 0 9 0 ( 2 0 1 1 ) ; W a s h
. R
. Ap p . P
. 1 6
. 5
. He fa il ed t o rai se t he B r ady i s s u e i n th i s c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k , i n w h i c h h e c oul d ha ve
e xpa nde d upon t he a ppe l l a t e r e c or d. A f t e rthi s pe r s ona l r e s tr a i ntpe t i t i on w a s de ni e d, he f i l e d t he pr e s e ntpe t i t i on f ora w r i tof

ha be a s c orpus , w hi c h w a s de ni e d by t he di s t r i c tc our t . T he di s tr i c tc our the l d, t o the ex t en t h er e r e l e va nt , tha ta l though t he B r ady c l a i m ha d be e n e xha us t e d on H unt on’ s di r e c t ap p eal , the r e f us a l of t he W as hi ng t on C ou rtof A pp ea l s t o con si der i t , beca use of a n i nsuffi ci ent l y devel op ed appel l at e r ec ord, const i tut ed a procedural forf ei ture. T hi s tw o-partho l di ng const i tut es3

t h e b asi s fo r t h e fi rst tw o q u est i o n s as t o w h i ch w e i ssu ed a cert i fi cat e o f ap p eal ab i l i t y,
n am el y: “ W h et h er t h e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y ru l ed th ata p p e lla n t ’ s B r ady c la im pr oc e dur a l l y de f

a ul t e d” a nd “ W he the rthe di s tr i c t c our t pr ope r l y rul e d tha ta ppe l l a nt
ex h au st ed h i s B r ady cl ai m , and i f n ot , w het her the di stri ctcourtshou l d h ave a ff orded
a ppe l l a nta n oppor tuni ty t o e xha us t the c l a i m i n s t a t e c our tthr ough a pe r s ona l r e s t r a i nt p e titio n .” T he di stri ct court er roneou sl y concl ud ed that , beca use the W as hi ng t o n C ou rt
o f A p p eal s refu sed t o co n si d er H u n t o n ’ s B r ady c la im , th a t c la im w a s p r o c e d u r a lly f o r f e ite d
. I n d e e d , t h e S ta te o f W a s h in g to n c o n c e d e s a s m u c h in its b r ie f o n a p p e a l. T he hol di ng of

the W a s hi ngt on C our t of A ppe a l s s i m pl y r e f l e c t e d the f

a c t tha tH unt on h ad p ressed h i s B r ady cl ai m i n the w rong forum , no t that he had procedural l y f orfe i t ed i t . I nd e e d, the r e i s no di s pu t e tha the r e ma i ne d f r e e t o r a i s e hi s c l a i m i n a pe rs on al
re stra i ntpet i t i on . T he fi rs t ce rt i fi ed qu es t i on i s, there fore , answ er ed i n t he negat i ve. T h e d i stri ct co u rt al so erro n eo u sl y ru l ed th atH u n t o n h ad ex h au st ed h i s B r ady cl ai m . T he B r ady cl ai m had no t been exhaust ed, no tw i thst andi ng t he fa ctt hati tw as
ra i se d o n di re ct appeal , beca use (1) the W as hi ng t on C ou rtof A pp ea l s det er m i ned t hat i t“ coul d n ot , consi st ent w i th i t s ow n p roce du ra l rul es , have ent er t ai ned i t , ” E dw ar ds
v. C arpent er , 529 U
. S
. 446, 453 ( 2000) , a nd ( 2) H unt on ha d a va i l a bl e t o hi m a r e m e dy b y w a y o f

th e p e r s o n a l r e s tr a in t p e titio n , se e 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( c ) ( “A n a p p lic a n t s h a ll4

no t be deeme d t o h a ve e xh a us t e d the r e me di e s a va i l a bl e i n the c ou r t s of the St a t e,
w ith in th e m e a n in g o f

th is s e c tio n , if

h e h a s th e r i g h t u n d e rth e la w o f th e S ta te to
r a is e , b y a n y a v a ila b le p r o c e d u r e , th e q u e s tio n p r e s e n te d .” ) ; c f. U ni t e d Stat e s v . Si m as , 937 F
. 2d 459, 463 ( 9t h C i r . 1991) ( de c l i ni ng t o c ons i de ri ne f f e ct i v e assi s t a nc e of
c o u n s e l c la im o n d ir e c t a p p e a l b e c a u s e “[ t]h e m o r e a p p r o p r ia te w a y to p u r s u e th is
. . . cl ai m i s by w ay of a habeas corpus proceedi ng ”)
. T he fi rs tpartof t he se cond ce rt i fi ed qu es t i on i s, t here fore , al so answ er ed i n t he negat i ve. N o e a s y a ns w e ri s a va i l a bl e w i th r e s pe c tt o t he s e c ond p art o f t h e s e c ond que s t i on c e r t i f

i e d, na m e l y , “ w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our ts houl d ha ve a f f or de d a ppe l l a nt
a n oppor t u n i t y t o e xha us tt he c l a i m i n s t a t e c our tthr ough a pe r s ona l r e s t r a i nt pet i t i on . ” S uch an o pp ortun i ty i s norm ally re fe rr ed t o as a “ st ay and abeyance pr oc e dur e . ” I n R hi nes v . W eber , 54 4 U
. S
. 26 9 (2 0 0 5), the S up re m e C ou rthel d t hat
s u c h a p r o c e d u r e s h o u ld n e v e rb e g r a n te d w h e r e th e c la im s a r e p la in ly m e r itle s s . I d. at27 7. M oreover, th e p ro ce du re i s onl y app ropri at e “ w hen t he di stri ctcourt d et erm i n es t h ere w as g o o d cau se fo r t h e p et i t i o n er’ s fai l u re t o ex h au sth i s cl ai m s fi rst i n st at e c ou rt . ” I

d. N e v e r t h e l e s s , b e c a u s e o f its e r r o n e o u s c o n c lu s io n th a t th e c la im
w as exhaust ed and p roce du ra l l y f orfe i t ed, the di stri ctcourt never consi dere d w het her t o exerci se i t s di sc re t i on t o i nv o k e th e stay and abeyance procedure ei ther und er R hi nes or un der the pre- R hi nes v e r s io n o f th a t p r o c e d u r e th a t w a s a ls o a v a i l a b l e toRemanding the case so that the di strict court may undertake thi s analysis makes it unnece ssary for 1 us to re a c h th e thi rd

c e rtif ie d q ue sti on , n ame ly

“ [w]he ther a

pp e lla nt i s e nti tle d to re lie f o n h is Brady claim,” whic h had never been considered on its merits by any court, e ither at the time that the district judgedismiss ed Hunton’s pe tition or thereaf ter. Hunto n h a s d on e so in s ix separa te mo tio ns to enla rg e there c ord. B e c a

us e themate ri a ls 2 principally

include opini ons in proce eding s Hunton commence d in the Washington State cour ts, of which we may t ak e j u d i ci al n o tice, see Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc
. , 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006), we grant th e m o t i o n s. Hunton has also filed a motion to remand to the dis tric t c ourt

fo r co ns ideratio n of cl a ims no t pre vio us ly pre se nte d to thedis tric t c ourt . Wede ny thi s motion, withoutprejudiceto a motion in the district cour t to amend the habea s petition to raise new c la ims
. 5 h im
. Se e K i ng v . R

y an , 5 6 4 F .3 d 1 1 3 3 , 1 1 4 0

– 4 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 )
. W e d e c lin e to
c ons i de rt ha tque s t i on i n t he f i r s ti ns t a nc e . A cco rd i n g l y, w e r e m a nd the c a s e t o t he di s t r i c tc our ts o t h ati tc a n unde r t a ke t hi s i nqui r y . B e f or e i tdoe s s o, how e ve r , the 1 d i stri ct co u rt sh o u l d ad d ress w h et h er H u n t o n ’ s B r ady cl ai m i s proce du ra l l y f orfe i t ed
on grou nd s other than t he grou nd in it iall y r el i ed up on by t he di stri ctcourt . In p a r tic u la r , H u n to n h a s c a lle d to o u r a tte n tio n , in h is s u p p le m e n ta l f ilin g s , c e r ta in s ta te

2 courtproceedi ng s thathave occurre d si nce hi s pet i t i on for a w ri tof habeas corpus w as de ni e d, w hi c h m a y be r e l e va ntt o t hi s de t e r m i na t i on. RE V E RS E D A ND RE MAND E D.