N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LOR R AINE NETHERTON, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. JANE PAR

NELL, Supe rinte nde nt, W a shington C orre c tions C e nte r for W om e n, R

e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 15-35052

D.C . No. 2:13-c v-01281-JC C M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington John C . C oughe nour, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 1, 2016 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : KOZINSKI a

nd O’ SC ANNLAIN, C irc uit Judge s a nd OR R IC K, ** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED MAR 03 2016 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 W illia m Horsle y Orric k III, Distric t Judgefor the U.S. Distric t C ourt for theNorthe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.Lorra ine Ne the rton a p pe a ls thedistric t

c ourt’ s de nia l of he r ha

be a s pe tition c ha lle nging va

rious a spe c t s of he r W a shington c o nvic tion for se c ond-de gre e m urde r. W e hav e jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. I The W a s hington C ourt of Appe a ls’ dismissa l of Ne the rton’ s pe t ition c onstitute d a

n “ a djudic at[ion] on the m e rits” for purpose s of the Antite rrorism and Effe c t ive De ath Pe na l t

y Ac t (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d), be c a use the de c ision issue d by the c o urt a ddre sse d “ the substa nc e of the c o nstitutiona

l c la im [s] a dva nc e d,” Lambe rt v . Blodge tt , 393 F.3d 943, 969 (9th C ir. 2004). Tha t Ne the rton’ s c la im s we re dispose d of by an orde r from

the C hie f Judge , a s a uthoriz e d unde r W a shington la w, se eW a sh. R . App. P. 16.11(b), ra the r tha n by a thre e -judge pa

ne l, is irre le va

nt a s “ a djudic ation ne c e ssa ry to trigge r AEDPA re vie w is not re stric te d to a ny pa rtic ula r form of he aring,” Lambe rt , 393 F.3d a t 967. Thus the

W a shington C ourt of Appe a ls’ de nia l of Ne t he rton’ s c l a im s m

ust be uphe ld unle ss it wa s “ c o ntra ry to, or involve d a

n unre a sona

b le a p plic ation of, c le arly e sta blishe d Fe de ra l la

w, a s de te rm ine d by

the Supre m e C ourt of theUnite d Stat e s” or “ wa s ba se d on a n unre a sona

ble de t e rm inat ion of thefa c ts” pre s e nte d. 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d).

2I I

The W a s hington C ourt of Appe a ls’ disposition of Ne the rton’ s c la im s unde r Brady v . Mary land, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), a nd Giglio v . Unite d State

s , 405 U.S. 150 (1972), wa

rrants AEDPA de fe re nc e . To e sta blish a Brady viola

tion, “ a de fe nda nt m ust show tha

t 1) the prose c ution suppre sse d e vide nc e tha t 2) wa s favora

ble to the a c c use d a nd 3) wa s m at e ria l.” Bark e r v . Fle ming , 423 F.3d 1085, 1094 (9th C ir. 2005). The c ourt’ s disposition wa s a re a sona ble a pplic ation of c le a

rly e sta blishe d la w be c a u se Ne the rton fa ile d to de m onstra te tha t the prose c ution ha d in fa c t suppre sse d im

pe a c hm e nt e vide nc e re lating to De te c tive De nny Gulla or ba l listic s e xpe rt Eva

n Thom pson. Nor did the distric t c ourt e rr in de ny ing Ne the rton disc ove ry re ga rding suc h c la im s. Whe n a

sta te c o urt a djudic ate s a

c la im on the m e rits, “ e vide nc e introduc e d in fe de ra l c ourt ha s no be aring on § 2254(d)(1) revie w.” C u lle n v . Pinholster , 563 U.S. 170, 185 (2011). Nethe rton wa s the re fore not e ntitle d to disc ove ry be c a use the W a shington C ourt of Appe a ls c onside re d a nd re je c te d he r Brady c ha lle nge s on the
m e rits. III The W a s hington C ourt of Appe a ls’ de te rm ination tha t de fe nse c ounse l’ s fa ilure to ta

ke photogra

phs of Ne the rton in jail did not a m ount to ine ffe c tive 3a ssista

nc e of c ounse l wa s not unre a sona b le . Give n the e vide nc e tha t Ne the rton in fa c t ha d not suffe re d signific ant visible injury , and the fa c t tha

t a ny ne w photogra phs would ha

ve be e n ta

ke n da y s a fte r he r e nc ounte r with De sire e R ants, Ne the rton fa ile d to de m onstra te tha t the re wa s “ a

re a sona ble proba bility tha t, but for c o unse l’ s unprofe ssiona l e rrors, the re sult of theproc e e d ing would ha ve be e n diffe re nt.” Stric k

land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). B e c a use the W a shington C ourt of Appe a ls’ c onc lusion tha t Ne the rton suffe re d no pre judic e wa s a re a sona ble a pplic ation of la

w to thefa c t s of the c a se , the de c ision m ust be uphe ld. S e e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d). IV The W a s hington C ourt of Appe a ls’ de te rm ination tha t the Stat e ’ s drive -by shooting c ha

rge did not c onstitute vindic tive prose c ution wa s not unre a sona ble
. Ne the rton fa ile d to de m onstra te tha t the prose c utor’ s c ha

rge wa s wholly unsupporte d by

proba ble c a use , se eBorde nk

irc he r v . Hay e

s , 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978), a nd the re is no indic ation tha t the State file d the a dditional c ha rge sole ly for the purpose of punishing Nethe rton for e xe rc ising a c onstitutiona l or sta tutory right, se eUnite d State

s v . K e n t , 649 F.3d 906, 912 (9th C ir. 2011). Furthe rm ore , the W a shington C ourt of Appe a l s de t e rm i ne d tha t Ne the rton wa s not pre

judic e d by

suc h a c h arge . B e c a

use the drive -by

shooting c h arge wa s 4droppe d be fore tria l, a nd be c a use any ne gative e ffe c t tha

t re s ulte d from

its pre s e nc e on the doc k e t wa s not signific ant e nough to dem onstra te tha t Ne the rton wa s pre judic e d a s a

re sult, thec ourt’ s de te rm ination tha t Ne the rton suffe re d

no due proc e s s viola

tion wa s re a sona

ble
. V Give n the re c ord be fore the W a shington C ourt of Appe a ls, no “re a sona ble jurist”c ould find the

C ourt of Appe a ls’ a sse ssm e nt of theunc e rtifie d issue s de bata ble
. Se e Slac k

v . Mc Danie l , 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000). W e thus de c line to e xpa nd the c e rtific ate of a

ppe a la bility
. Ne the rton’ s “ M otion to File Additional Exc e rpt of R e c ord,” file d on Fe brua ry 4, 2016, is gra

nt e d. AFFIRM E D.

5