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

ATTS, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. R IC K C OUR SEY, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 11-35155

D.C . No. 6:10-c v-00375-HO 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 M ic ha e l R . Hoga

n , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

8, 2013 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : PREGER SON, M U R GUIA, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. An Ore gon jury c o nvic te d Pe titione r True tt John W atts of m urde r. The Ore gon post-c onvic tion c o urts re je c te d W atts’ s c onte n tion tha t he re c e ive d ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l (IAC ) at tria l. W atts file d a fe de ra l ha

be a s pe tition ra ising thesa

m e IAC c la im

he pre se nte d in sta

te post-c onvic tion 

# FIL ED

JUL 23 2013 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.proc e e dings, a nd the distric t c ourt de nie d the pe tition. W e have jurisdic t ion ove r W atts’ s a ppe a l pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . §§ 1291 a nd 2253, a

n d we a ffirm . The Ore g on c ourts did not ha ve a full a nd fa i r opportunity

to a c t on theIAC c la im W atts pre se n t s he re : tha

t tria l c o unse l should ha

ve pursue d a de fe nse the ory ba se d on W atts’ s Pa xil inge stion a nd a rum or tha

t the m urde r vic t im m ight ha

ve se xua l ly a buse d W atts. 1 O’Sullivan v . Boe rc k e l , 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). Prope r e xha ustion in sta

te c o urt re quire s a

spe c i fic sta

te m e nt of ope ra t ive fa c ts supporting a c la im . W

ood v . Ry a n , 693 F.3d 1104, 1117 (9th C ir. 2012); Moormann v . Sc hriro , 426 F.3d 1044, 1056 (9th C ir. 2005). A c la im is not e xha

uste d m e re ly be c a use the fa c ts re l ie d on by

a pe titione r in fe d e ra l c ourt we re in the sta te -c ourt re c o rd. Gulbrandson v. Ry an , 711 F.3d 1026, 1042 (9th C ir. 2013). W e a ffirm ba se d on W atts’ s fa i l ure to e xha ust his ne w c la im

in sta te c o urt. 28 U.S.C . § 2254(b)(1)(A). Alte rnative ly , W atts’ s IAC c la im la c ks m e rit. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(b)(2) (a ha be a s c la im

m ay be de nie d on its m e rits de spite the pe titione r’ s fa ilure to e xha ust). W atts de nie d

e v e r be ing se xua l ly

a b use d, a nd e ve n those who ha

rbore d the s e suspic ions de nie d

having a ny proof tha t the se xua l a

buse oc c urre d. W atts points to no evide n c e tha

t tria l c ounse l fa i le d to inve stiga te a l l re a s ona

bly possible

1 Inde e d, W atts did not a

rtic ulate this a lle g ation in the distric t c ourt. 2de fe nse strate gie s, c f. W iggins v . Smith , 539 U.S. 510, 524–25 (2003), a nd pre se nts no e vide n c e tha

t tria l c ounse l’ s de c ision to pursue an insa nity de fe nse , a

nd to fore go a de fe nse built on unc onfirm e d suspic ions, wa s unre a sona ble unde r the c irc um s ta nc e s , se eC

u lle n v . Pinholster , 131 S. C t. 1388, 1407 (2011) (sta ting a c ourt m ust “ a ffirm ative ly

e n te rta in the range of possiblere a sons [] c ounse l m ay have ha d for proc e e ding a s [he ] did.” (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d)); K

now le s v . Mirzay anc e , 556 U.S. 111, 127 (2009) (“ The la w doe s not re quire c ounse l to ra ise e v e ry ava ila

b l e nonfrivolous de fe nse . ” ). Ac c ordingly , W atts fa ils to rebut the

“ strong pre sum

ption” tha t c ounse l re nde re d e ffe c tive a ssista nc e . Harrington v. Ric h te r , 131 S. C t. 770, 787 (2011) (inte rna l quota tion m a rks om itte d). AFFIRM E D.

3