N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT ENR IQUE DIAZ, Pe titione r-Appe l la

nt,

v. LAR R Y SM A LL, W a rde n R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 12-55678 D.C . No. C V-09-147-R GK-R NB

M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia R obe rt G. Kla

usne r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 26, 2013 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : G O U L D a nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd LEM ELLE, Di s t r i ct Judge

. ** Appe lla nt Enrique Dia z a

ppe a ls th e d is tric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his 2 8 U.S.C

. § 2254 h a b e a s p e tition, whic h c ha lle nge s h is c onvic t ion for first de gr ee m u r der ba se d 

# FIL ED
OCT 04 2013 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 tion 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 Iva n L. R . Le m e lle , Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of Louisia n a , sitting by de signa

tion. 1on ine ffe c tive a ssista n c e of c ounse l, a

n d its d e nia l of his re que st for a sta y . W e a ffirm

. Unde r the Antite rrorism a nd Effe c t ive De a th Pe na lty Ac t of 1996, a pe tition for ha be a s c orpus re lie f tha t wa s a djudic a te d on t he m e rits in sta

t e c ourt c a nnot be gra nte d unle ss the sta

te ’ s de c ision wa s “ c ontra ry to or i nvolve d a n unre a s ona ble a p plic a tion of, c le a rly e sta

b l ishe d Fe de ra l la

w.” 28 U.S.C

. § 2254(d)(1). In orde r to p re va il on a n ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e o f c ounse l c la im , a

de fe nda nt m ust show (1) tha t his c ounse l’ s
c onduc t wa s de fic ie nt a nd (2) tha t the de fic ie nc y pre judic e d t h e de fe nse . Stric k land

v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). I f the pe titione r fa ils to e sta blish e ithe r prong of the Stric k

l and te s t, re lie f c a nnot be gra nte d. Id. a t 700. In orde r to e sta blish pre j udic e , the pe t itione r m

ust show tha t but for his a ttorne y ’ s e rror, it is substa ntia lly like ly tha t t

he o utc o m e o f t

he proc e e ding would ha ve b een diffe re n t. Harrington v . Ric h te r , 131 S. C t
. 7 70, 792 (2011). He re , Dia z a rgue d tha t he re c e ive d ine ffe c tive

a s s i st an ce o f c ounse l a t tria l due t o his a ttorne y 's a lle ge d fa ilure to inve stiga te a n d pre s e nt a libi witne ss e vide nc e . Howe ve r, Appe l la nt did not pre se nt e vide n c e tha t his

c ounse l should ha ve p re se n te d the a lle ge d a libi witne sse s , or tha t the ir pote ntia l te stim ony would ha ve b e e n substa ntia lly like ly to c ha

nge the ve rdic t. Thus, w e a ffirm the d istric t c o urt ruling. A distric t c ou r t ab us es its disc re tion in de ny ing a re q ue st for a sta

y if the pe titione r ha d good c a

use for his fa ilure to pre se nt the ne w e v ide nc e in sta te c ourt, ha s

2not p a rtic ipa te d in an y dila tory litiga tion ta c tic s, a nd ha s a pote ntia lly m e ritorious

c la im

. Gonzale

z v . W o ng , 667 F.3d 965, 980 (9th C i r. 2011)

. H ere , Dia z c onte nde d tha t he ha d good c a

use for h is fa ilure t o subm it the witne sse s’ te stim ony to the sta te
c ourt becau s e h e w a s una ble to loc a te a nd c onta c t the m while he wa s inc a rc e ra te d. Howe ve r, te s tim ony g ive n by a nothe r witne ss a nd by Dia z him se lf re fute d this c la im

. 1 Additiona lly , while Dia z a sse rte d t ha t his c ounse l’ s c onduc t was de fic ie nt be c a use she fa ile d to prope rly inve stiga te a nd p r es en t a libi witne ss e vide nc e , the te stim ony of c o unse l’ s inve stiga tor re fute d tha t c la i m . The inve stiga tor te stifie d tha t he did inquire i nto a n a libi de fe nse pe r the instruc tions of Dia z ’ s c ounse l, a nd tha t he inte rvie we d p ote ntia l a lib i w i tn es se s. 2 C ounse l t e stifie d tha t she wa s a wa re of the pote ntia l a libi de fe nse , a nd m a de a stra t e gic de c ision 3 to “ go in a nothe r dire c t ion” d ue

1 The distric t c o u rt found tha t it wa s like ly

tha t Dia z did ha

ve c onne c t ions to Espe ra nz a

Alva re z while he wa s inc a rc e ra t e d be c a use Dia z fa t

he re d a c h i ld with Alva re z ' s siste r, a n d both Dia

z a nd Alva

re z ha d re gula

r c onta c t with Alva

re z 's siste r. Furthe r, Dia z te s tifie d during the e vide n tia ry he a ring tha

t he kne w he c ould " ge t a hold" of Louie Pa dilla

.
2 The se inte rvie w subje c ts inc lude d Louie Pa dilla (whom Dia z told polic e tha t he wa s with the night of the m u rde r), a nd Na

j ia M e y e rs (who live d a t

the house whe re Dia z c la im e d to be the night of the m u rde rs).

3 Unde r S tric k land , c ounse l is give n gre a t de fe re nc e in m a king stra te gic c hoic e s a fte r c onduc ting a n inve stiga

tion into the

la w a nd re le va nt fa c ts. 466 U.S. a t 690; se e also Gulbrandson v . Ry an , 711 F.3d 1026, 1038 (9th C i r. 2013) (holding tha

t de fe nse c ounse l c ould ha ve re a sona

bly de c ide d to e xc lude witne ss te stim ony a s ha rm ful give n the c irc um sta nc e s)

. 3to the unfa vora ble tim e line a nd loc a tion e sta blis h ed b y Dia z 's sta

t e m e nts a nd those of the witne sse s inte rvie we d. Thus, the ne w e vide nc e would n o t h av e re n de re d his

c la im “ pote ntia lly

m e ritorious.” A cco r dingly , the d istric t c ourt prope rly found tha t c la i m s of ine ffe c t i v e
a ssista nc e of c ounse l a nd for a sta y fa ile d to sa tisfy the r el ev an t s ta nda rds unde r Stric k land a nd Gonzale

s . AFFIRM E D.

4