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

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt, v. M ARK NOOTH,

R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 15-35830 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-01353-AA 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 Ann L. Aiken, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Submitte d M arc h

10, 2017 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : LEAVY a

nd FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B ENITEZ, ** Distric t Judge . Pe titioner Lym on He n s on a ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his pe tition for writ of ha

be a s c orpus. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C .



# F IL ED APR 12 2017 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 Honora

ble R oge r T. B e nite z , Unite d State s Distric t Judgefor the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.§§ 1291 a

nd 2253. W e re vie w de novo, se eDy e r v . Hornbe c k, 706 F.3d 1134, 1137 (9th C ir. 2013), a

nd we a ffirm . 1. B a c kground. He nson wa s c onvic te d in 2005 of first-de gre e m ansla u ghte r, driving under the influe nc e of intoxic ants, a nd le sse r offe nse s re lating to a

n a utom obilea c c ide nt tha

t oc c urre d in 2001. On dire c t a ppe a l, He nson ra ise d two a s signm e nts of e rror, ne ithe r of whic h c onc e rne d ine ffe c tive a s sista

nc e of his trial c ounse l or the Sixth Am e n dm e nt right to a n im pa rtia l jury . The Ore gon C ourt of Appe a ls a ffirm e d without opinion a nd theOre gon Supre m e C ourt de nie d re vie w. He nson the n file d

a sta te pe tition for post-c onvic tion re lie f, ra ising se ve ra l diffe re nt ine ffe c tive a ssista n c e c la im s. One c la im

a sse rte d tha

t his trial c o unse l provide d ine ffe c tive a s sista nc e whe n he “ fa ile d to e xc use ” a c e rta in juror whose wife wa s the first pe rson to a rrive at the a fte rm ath of thea utom obilea c c ide nt. The post-c onvic tion trial c o urt c onc lude d tha t c ounse l wa s not ine ffe c tive and de te rm i ne d tria l c o unse l’ s “ [s] trate gy not to e xc u se juror sound.” In his post-c onvic tion opening brie f to theOre gon C ourt of Appe a ls, He nson pre s e nte d a

“ slightly diffe re nt” argum e nt—

that he wa s de nie d his “ c onstitutiona l right to a n im pa rtia l jury .” He n son sta

te d, “ Thus, insofa

r a s the c la i m

in his pe tition re late s to trial c ounse l’ s ine ffe c tive ne ss or ina de qua c y , pe titioner is not

1 5 - 3 5 8 3 0 2m aking tha

t c la im on a ppe a l.” The Ore gon C ourt of Appe a ls a ffirm e d without opinion a nd theOre gon Supre m e C o urt de nie d re vie w. He nson ne xt pe titione d p ro se for a writ of ha

be a s c o rpus in fe de ra l distric t c ourt. Theha

be a s pe tition a sse rte d a

n im pa rtia l jury c la im , but not a

n ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e juror-c ha l le nge c la im . The distric t c ourt e ve ntua l ly a p pointe d c ounse l . C ounse l did not file

an am e nde d ha

be a s pe t ition, but did file

a brie f in support of He nson’ s pro se ha

b e a s pe tition. The

distric t c ourt de nie d the ha be a s pe t ition but issue d a c e rtific ate of a

p pe a l a bility . The distric t c ourt a lso de nie d He nson’ s m otion to a

m e nd his ha

be a s pe tition. 2. Ine ffe c tive a ssista

n c e c la im . The distric t c ourt did not err in c onc luding that He nson’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e juror-c ha l le nge c la im wa s not ple d in his fe de ra l ha be a s pe t ition a

n d , in a ny e ve nt, wa s proc e d

ura lly de fa ulte d. He nson c o nte nds tha

t , a lthough the

ine ffe c t ive a ssista

nc e c la i m wa s not squa re ly ra ise d in his petition, the distric t c ourt should ha

ve libe ra lly

c o nstrue d He nson’ s pro se fe d e ra l ha be a s pe tition to a sse rt suc h a c la i m by vie wing theSixth Am e ndm e nt im

pa rtia l j ury c la im “ through thele ns of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e .” B ut e ve n if c onstrue d

libe ra lly , He nson’ s fe de ra l ha be a s pe tition plainly

doe s not inc l ude the ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e juror-c ha lle n ge c la im . The distric t c ourt did not a buse i ts disc re tion in deny ing He nson’ s m otion to a m e nd his ha

be a s pe tition to

1 5 - 3 5 8 3 0 3a dd tha

t c la im be c a use He nson provide d no ne w fa c ts or sa tisfa c tory e xpla nation for his fa ilure to de ve lop the c onte ntions origina lly . Se eBonin v . C

alde ron , 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th C ir. 1995) (sta ting sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd c onside rat ions for am e ndm e nts). M ore o ve r, a ny am e ndm e nt would befutilebe c a use He nson spe c ific a lly

and e xp lic itly

did not raise the ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e juror-c ha lle nge c la im to theOre gon a

ppe lla t e c ourts a

nd thec la im

is the re fore proc e dura lly ba rre d . Se e Pe te rson v . Lampe rt , 319 F.3d 1153, 1155-56 (9th C ir. 2003) (e n ba nc ); se e also O’Sulliv

a n v . Boe rc k

e l , 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (exha ustion re quire s a pe titioner to “ give the sta te c ourts onefull opportunity to re solveany

c onstitutiona

l issue s by invoking one

c om ple te round of theState ’ s e sta b lishe d a ppe lla te re vie w proc e s s” ). He nson a c knowle d g e s tha t he did not e xplic itly

ra ise the ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e juror-c ha l le nge c la im to theOre gon a

ppe lla te c ourts, but hec onte nds that the c la im wa s suffic ie ntly

ra ise d by the sta t e in its post-c onvic tion a ppe lla te brie fing to theOre gon C ourt of Appe a ls. W e re je c t this c o nte ntion be c a

use the sta te only m e ntione d

He nson’ s ine ffe c tive a s sista n c e juror-c ha lle nge c la i m in its answe ring brie f to a

rgue tha t “ [a ] lthough pet itione r doe s not a rgue on a ppe a l tha t the p ost-c onvic tion c ourt e rre d in de ny ing his ine ffe c tive -a ssista nc e -of-c ounse l c la im with re ga rd to thejuror issue , suc h a c la im would ha ve fa ile d .” The sta

te ’ s 1 5 - 3 5 8 3 0 4brie f tre atm e nt of tha t issue wa s insuffic i e nt to a le rt the a ppe lla te c ourts to a

c la im that He nson ha d spe c ific a lly

and e xplic itly

a ba ndone d. S

e ePe te rson , 319 F.3d a

t 1157 (holding tha

t thec irc um sta

nc e s we re insuffic ie nt to a le rt the sta te a ppe lla te c ourt tha t pe t itione r wa s se e king re vie w of a pa rtic ula r fe de ra l issue ). 3. Im pa rtia l jury c la im . The distric t

c o urt did not err in c onc luding tha t He nson’ s im

pa rtia l jury c l a im wa s a lso proc e dura lly

de fa ulte d. He nson did not ra ise the c la im

at tria l or on dire c t a

ppe a l, whic h would ordina rily re s ult in proc e d ura l de fa ult of a c la im

arising from

tria l e rror. Se ePalme r v . State , 867 P.2d 1368, 1369-73 (Or. 1994) (holding tha t a post-c onvic tion pe titioner ge ne ra lly m ay not ra ise c la im s tha

t c ould ha ve be e n ra ise d during theunde rly ing c rim ina l proc e e ding a

nd dire c t a

ppe a l). Ore gon proc e d

ura l la w, howe ve r, provide s for the a sse rtion in post-c onvic tion proc e e dings of c la im s tha t “ c o uld not re a sona

bly have be e n a s se rte d in the dire c t a ppe lla te re vie w proc e ss,” 1 O R . RE V . S T A T . § 138.550(2), such a s c la im s tha t re quire furthe r fa c tua l de ve l opm e nt, s e eK e llotat v . C upp , 719 F.2d 1027, 1030 (9th C ir. 1983) (e xpla ining tha t post-c onvic tion

1 Ac c ordingly , He nson’ s a rgum e nt tha

t Ore gon provide s no proc e d ura l m e c ha nism through which he c ould a s se rt his im p artia l jury

c la im and, the re fore , that he should bee xc u s e d from the e xha ustion re quire m e nt, 28 U.S.C . § 2254(b)(1)(B ), is unpe rsua sive . 1 5 - 3 5 8 3 0 5re vie w is a

va ila ble in Ore gon “ [f] or viola t ions of a de fe nda nt’ s rights tha

t oc c ur a fte r tria l , or tha

t re q uire a furthe r e vide ntia

ry he a ring for the ir de te rm ination” ). For that re a son, He nson’ s im

pa rtia l jury c la i m , whic h de p e nde d

on e vide nc e be y ond thetria l re c ord, like ly wa s not proc e dura lly

de fa ulte d due to his failure to ra ise the c la im

on dire c t a

p pe a l . Se e Or. R . App. P. 3.05 (re vie w on dire c t a ppe a l lim ite d to trial re c ord). None the le ss, thec la im

wa s proc e d

ura lly de fa ulte d be c a

use He nson fa ile d to a sse rt it in his origina

l post-c onvic tion pe tition. Se e O R . RE V . S T A T . § 138.550(3) (“ All grounds for re lie f . . . m ust be a sse rte d in theorigina l or a m e nde d pe tition, and a ny grounds not so a sse rte d a re de e m e d wa ive d.” ); se ealso Pratt v. Arme n ak is , 112 P.3d 371, 374-75 (Or. Ct. App. 2005) (holding tha t Ore gon a ppe lla te c o urts ha

ve no a uthority to c onside r ne w post-c onvic tion c la im s ra ise d for the first tim e on a

ppe a l). AFFIRM E D.

1 5 - 3 5 8 3 0 6