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

AY B AR NETT, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. B R IAN DUFFEY, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 13-16564

D.C . No. 5:08-c v-01604-R M W 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 R ona ld M . Wh y te , Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a n d Subm itte d Oc tobe r 20, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : D.W . NELSON, C LIFTON, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. De nnis B a

rne tt, a C a lifornia sta

te prisone r, a

ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of his 28 U.S.C . § 2254 ha be a s pe tition. B a

rne tt ra ise d se ve ra l diffe re nt ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c la i m s in his pro se pe tition, but the

c la im a t issue in this a p pe a l

— s te m

m ing from the a lle g e d

fa ilure of tria l c ounse l to ra i se B arne tt’ s



# F IL ED NOV 02 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

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

pe te nc y following B arne tt’ s te stim ony at tria l

— wa s “ burie d,” by B arne tt’ s own de s c ription, a

m id hundre ds of pa ge s of e vide ntia ry e xhibits a

ppe nde d to his pe tition. W e c onc lude that B arne tt did not ade quat e ly ple a d the c onte s te d ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c la i m

and a ffirm

the dism issa l of his pe tition. A pro se ha

be a s pe tition is “ give n

the be ne fit of libe ra l c onstruc tion,” Porte r v . Ollison , 620 F.3d 952, 958 (9th C ir. 2010), but e v e n “ a libe ra l inte rpre tation . . . m ay not supply

. . . [a ] c la im

tha t [wa s] not initially ple d.” Iv e y v . Bd. of Re

ge nts of Univ . of Alask

a , 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th C ir. 1982). M ore ove r, it is we ll e sta blishe d tha

t “ [p] ro se litiga

nts m ust follow the

sa m e rule s of proc e dure tha t gove rn othe r litiga

nts.” K ing v . Atiy e h , 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th C ir. 1987), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by Lac e y v . Maric opa C

ty . , 693 F.3d 896 (9th C ir. 2012) (e n ba

nc ). He re , “ R

ule 2(c ) of the R

ule s Gove rning Ha

be a s C orpus C a se s . . . instruc ts the pe titione r to ‘ spe c ify a l l the grounds for re lie f ava ila ble to [him ] ’ and to ‘ s tate the fa c ts supporting e a c h ground.’ ” M ay lev . Fe l ix , 545 U.S. 644, 649 (2005) (c ita

tion om itte d). None the le ss, a fe de ra l ha

b e a s pe titione r a de quate ly

ple a ds a n othe rwise am

biguous c la i m

by m aking “ c le a

r a nd re pe a te d” re fe re n c e s to a

n a ppe nde d supporting brie f tha t pre se nts the c la im

with suffic ie nt pa rtic u la rity . Dy e v . Hofbaue r , 546 U.S. 1, 4 (2005).

2B arne tt fa ile d to ple a d the ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im a t issue in this a ppe a l with there quisite spe c ific ity . The pe tition’ s ge ne ra l re fe re nc e s to hundre ds of pa ge s of atta c h e d e xhibits a re insuffic i e nt to inc orporate the c l a im . Se e Dy e , 546 U.S. a

t 4; c f. Baldw in v . Re e

se , 541 U.S. 27, 32 (2004). Although B arne tt’ s sta

te ha be a s pe tition c onta i ns the ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im a t issue in this a

ppe a l, B arne tt did not make c le a r and re pe a te d re fe re nc e s to the a tta c h e d sta te pe tition in his fe de ra l ha be a s pe tition. Of the

thirty pa ge s of his fe de ra l ha be a s pe t ition, B arne tt m a de only two re fe re nc e s to his sta te ha be a s pe tition a nd ne ithe r re fe re nc e c le arly indic a te s tha

t he inte nde d to inc orporate into his fe de ra l pe tition the

c la im s of his sta

te pe tition. “ Ha

be a s c la im s tha

t are not ra ise d be fore the distric t c o urt in the pe tition a re not c ogniz a

ble on a ppe a l.” C ac ope rdo v . De mosthe ne

s , 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th C i r. 1994) (c iting K ing v . Row land, 977 F.2d 1354, 1357 (9th C i r. 1992)). B arne tt a sse rts tha

t the distric t

c ourt should ha

ve c o nside re d a

n am e nde d pro se ha be a s pe t ition tha

t he m a ile d to the distric t c ourt in De c e m be r 2008. B a

rne tt doe s not sugge st tha

t the propose d am e nde d pe tition should ha ve be e n file d. R a the r, B arne tt’ s argum e nt a p pe ars to be tha

t the distric t c ourt should ha ve tre a te d the d oc um e nt a s furthe r e vide nc e inform ing the e va luation of whe the r B arne tt’ s origina l fe de ra l ha

be a s pe tition indic a te d

an inte nt to inc orporate the c onte ste d 3ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la i m . B arne tt c ite s no a uthority for the proposition tha

t a distric t c o urt is obliga

te d to look be y ond the pe tition a nd a tta c h e d e xhibits when de te rm ining whe the r that pe t ition a de quat e ly

ple a d s a c la im . Se e R

u le 4, R u le s Gove rning Se c tion 2254 C a se s in the Unite d State s Distric t C ourts (dire c ting the inquiry at the m otion to dism

iss sta ge to “ the pe tition and a ny atta c h e d e xhibits” ). AFFIRM E D.

4