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

Y, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. K. ALLISON, Assoc iate W a rde n, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 14-15841

D.C . No. 4:12-c v-03379-PJH 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 Phy llis J. Ha

m i lton, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

13, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : KOZINSKI, PAEZ, a nd C L IFTON, C irc uit Judge s. C ha rle s Fa ultry , a C a lifornia

sta te prisone r, a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his ha be a s pe tition. W e a ffirm . W e have pre viously c onc lude d tha

t Fare tta v . C alifornia , 422 U.S. 806 (1975), “ c le arly e s ta blishe d som e tim ing e le m e nt,” though “w e still do not know the pre c ise c ontours of tha

t e le m e nt.” Marshall v
. 

# FIL ED N OV 19 2015 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.Tay lor , 395 F.3d 1058, 1061 (9th C ir. 2005). “ At m ost, we know tha t Fare tta re que s ts m a de ‘ we e ks be fore tria l’ are tim e ly .” Id .; se e also Moore v . C a lde ron , 108 F.3d 261, 265 (9th C ir. 1997). To obta i n re lie f, Fa

u l try m ust do m o re tha

n m e re ly de m o nstra

te tha t the sta te c ourt de c ision he c ha lle nge s wa s in te nsion with our inte rpre t ation of Fare tta ’ s holding. Hem

ust de m onstra

t e tha t the sta te c ourt de c ision “wa s c ontra ry to, or involve d a

n unre a sona

ble a pplic ation of,” Fare tta . 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1). As we have obse rve d, “

Fare tta doe s not a

rtic ulate a spe c ific tim e fra m e pursua nt to whic h a c la im for se lf-re pre se ntation qua lifie s a s tim e ly ,” Ste n son v . Lambe rt , 504 F.3d 873, 884 (9th C ir. 2007), nor doe s it pre c lude a c onside ra t ion of fa c tors othe r tha n the n um be r of we e ks be fore tria l a se lf-re pre se ntation m otion wa s m a de . W e c onc lude tha

t Fa ultry ha s not e sta

blishe d tha

t the sta te c ourt de c ision he c ha lle nge s wa s in “ d i re c t a nd irre c onc ila

ble c onflic t with Supre m e C o urt pre c e de nt,” Murray

v . Sc hriro , 745 F.3d 984, 997 (9th C ir. 2014), nor ha s he shown “ that the sta

t e c ourt’ s ruling . . . wa s so la c king in justific ation tha t the re wa s a n e rror we ll unde rstood a nd c om p re he nde d in e xisting la

w be y o n d a

ny

2possibility

for fa i rm inde d disa gre e m e nt.” Harrington v. Ric hte r , 131 S. C t. 770, 786–87 (2011). 1 W e de c line to e xpa

nd the c e rtific at e of a

ppe a l a bility . “ Ha

be a s c la im s . . . not ra ise d be fore the distric t c ourt in thepe tition a re not c ogniz a

ble on a ppe a l,” Robinson v . K

rame r , 588 F.3d 1212, 1217 (9th C i r. 2009) (inte rna l quota tion
m arks om itte d), a

nd the “ na

rrow e xc e ptions”to this gene ra l rule do not a pply he re . Id . AFFIRM E D.

1 Ne ithe r Marshall , 395 F.3d a t 1060–61, nor Moore , 108 F.3d a t 265, c om pe ls a c ontra ry c onc lusion. In Marshall , the m otion wa s c le arly untim e ly e ve n unde r a “ we e ks be fore tria l” sta

nda rd, so we did not c onside r the c irc um s ta nc e s unde r whic h a

sta te c o urt a c ts c ontra

ry to or unre a sona

b ly a pplie s Fare tta . Although wedid gra

nt re l ie f in Moore , tha

t c a se
— whic h involve d a

ha be a s pe tition tha

t wa s file d prior to AEDPA’ s e ffe c t ive date , a nd whic h wa s a

na ly z e d unde r both the pre - and post-AEDPA ve rsions of 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)— a pplie d a n AEDPA fram e work tha

t the Supre m e C o urt subse que ntly a brogat e d. Se e

, e .g. , Van Tran v . Lindse

y , 212 F.3d 1143, 1149 n.9 (9th C i r. 2000) (“ Moore . . . [is] no longe r good la

w . ” ). 3Faultry

v . Allison , No. 14-15841 PAEZ, C irc uit Judge , disse nting I re spe c tfully

disse nt. I a gre e with them a j ority tha t we have re c ogniz e d tha

t

“ Fare tta ‘ c le arly

e sta blishe d’ tha

t a se lf-re pre se ntation m otion m a de ‘ w e e ks be fore tria l ’ is tim e ly . ” M e m . at 1-2. I would hold, howe ve r, tha t be c a use Fa ultry m a de his re que st for se lf-re pre se ntation we e k s be fore tria l, a nd be c a use the re is no disputetha

t Fa ultry ’ s re que st wa s “ knowing a nd inte llige nt,” the sta

te c o urt’ s de te rm i nation wa s c ontra

ry to Fare tta ’ s tim e line ss rule . I am guide d in tha t c onc lusion by Moore v . C alde ron , 108 F.3d 261 (9th C ir. 1997), whic h I be lie ve is c ontrolling here . The re , we re c ogniz e d tha t the re l e va

n t fa c ts we re “ ide n tic a l to those in Fare tta . Like Fare tta , M oore m a de his re que st ‘ w e e ks be fore tria l.’ ” Id. at 265. Afte r noting tha

t “ [i] t is undispute d tha

t M oore ’ s wa ive r of his right to c ounse l wa s knowing a

nd inte llige nt,” we he ld tha t “ [b] y fa iling to gra

nt M oore ’ s tim e ly re que st, the tria l c ourt a

bridge d M oore ’ s right to se lf-re pre se n tation unde r the Sixth Am e ndm e nt.” Id. The m a jority ignore s Moore ’ s Fare tta ana l y sis be c a u se , it e xpla ins, we gran te d ha

be a s re l ie f unde r an AEDPA fram e work tha t the Supre m e C ourt la

te r a brogate d in W

illiams v . Tay lor , 529 U.S. 362 (2000). M e m . at 2 n.1. Although the Supre m e C ourt a

brogate d the distinc tion we ha d dra wn be twe e n

the two sta nda rds for ha be a s re lie f in 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1), the re is nothing in W i lliams 

# FIL ED N OV 19 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALSthat

sugge sts our a

pplic at ion of the“ c ontra

ry to” prong in Moore ’ s Fare tta c la im wa s e rrone ous. In Moore , whic h we d e c ide d be fore W i lliams , we ana ly z e d the tim e line ss of M oore ’ s Fare tta re que st unde r only the “ c ontra

ry to” prong of § 2254(d)(1), a nd not unde r the “ unre a sona

ble a pplic ation” prong. M

oore , 108 F.3d a

t 265 n.3. Our unde rsta nding a t tha t tim e wa s tha

t the “ c o ntra

ry to” la ngua ge gove rne d que stions of la w, while the “ unre a s ona

ble a pplic at ion of” la

ngua ge gove rne d m ixe d que stions of la

w a nd fa c t. Id. W

illiams m a de c le a

r tha t this dic hotom

y wa s inc o rre c t . The C ourt proc e e de d to e xpla in tha t a sta t e c ourt de c i sion is “ c ontra ry to” Supre m e C ourt pre c e de nt “ if the sta t e c ourt a rrive s at a c onc lusion opposite

to that re a c he d by th[e ] C o urt on a

que stion of la

w ,” or if it “ c onfronts fa c ts tha t a re m ate ria l ly indistinguisha

ble from a re le va nt Supre m e C o urt pre c e de nt a nd a rrive s at a re sult opposite

to” its own. W

illiams , 529 U.S. a

t 405. W e have e xpla ine d sinc e W illiams tha

t this wa s the issue on whic h W illiams a brogat e d Moore . Se e Bak e r v . C ity of Blaine , 221 F.3d 1108, 1110 n.2 (9th C ir. 2000) (e xpla i ning tha t Moorewa s m ista

ke n be c a u se both “ c ontra

ry to” and “ unre a sona

ble a pplic ation of” a pply to both que stions of la

w a nd m ixe d que stions of la

w a nd fa c t following

2W

illiams ). 1 Although the footnote in Mooree xpla ining why we ana ly z e d the ha

be a s pe tition under the “ c ontra ry to” prong is no longe

r good la w, we did not e rr in ana ly z ing M oore ’ s ha

be a s pe tition under the “ c ontra ry to” prong. Se e W

i lliams , 529 U.S. a

t 405-06 (e xpla ining tha

t que stions of la

w a nd fa c tua l que stions m ay both be ana ly z e d unde r the “ c ontra ry to” prong). Furthe r, our “ c ontra ry to” ana ly sis of M oore ’ s Fare tta c la im wa s c o nsiste nt with W

illiams ’ “ c ontra

ry to”
m e thodology . In Moore , we e xpla ine d tha t the fa c ts be fore us we re “ m ate ria lly indistinguisha

ble ” from those in Fare tta , but tha

t the sta te c ourt “ arrive [d] at a re sult opposite to” tha

t in Fare tta . W

illiams , 529 U.S. a

t 405; Moore , 108 F.3d a

t 265. Thus, although W

illiams a brogate d the distinc t ion we ha d dra w n be twe e n the two sta nda rds in 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1), our a na ly sis in M

oorec o m porte d with W illiams ’ sta

nda rd for de te rm ining whe n a sta t e c ourt de c i sion is c ontra ry to e sta blishe d Supre m e C ourt la w . B e c a use W i lliams did not a

brogate Moore ’ s a

p plic at ion of Fare tta , we are

“ bound” by

its e n unc i ation of “ c le a

rly e s ta blishe d Supre m e C ourt la w.” Marshall
v . Tay lor , 395 F.3d 1058, 1061 n.15 (9th C ir. 2005). M ooresta te d tha t it wa s

“ c o ntra ry to” the la w “ c le a rly e sta blishe d by F

are t ta ” not to gra

nt the writ whe re

1 Nota bly , W illiams doe s not disc uss Fare tta what soe ve r. 3the fa c ts a

re “ ide ntic a l to those in Fare tta .” 108 F.3d a t 265. The fa c ts tha

t m a de M oore ’ s situa

tion ide ntic a l to Fa

re tta ’ s we re tha

t M oore m a de his re q

ue st for se l fre pre se ntation “ w e e ks be fore tria l,” and tha t the re wa s no dispute

tha t M oore ’ s wa ive r wa s “ k

nowing a nd inte l lige nt.” Id. Unde r Moore , whe n a ll the se fa c ts e xist, suc h a

re que st for se lf-re p re se ntat ion is time ly unde r Fare tta . He re , the re is no dispute that Fa ultry ’ s wa ive r wa s knowing a nd inte llige nt. The only que stion tha

t re m a ins is whe the r M oore m a de his re q ue s t we e ks be fore tria l . Fa ultry ’ s tria l wa s origina lly sc he dule d for Ja nua ry 15, 2008. On Ja

nua ry 16, Fa ultry m a d e his re que st for se lf-re pre se ntation. At the Ja n ua ry 16 he aring, it wa s c le ar to the tria l judge tha t Fa ultry ’ s tria l would not be gin until Fa ultry ’ s c ounse l finishe d a nothe r tria l, whic h ha d not y e t sta rte d a nd would “

proba bly take no m ore tha n a bout two we e k s.” The re a fte r, the tria l judge de nie d Fa ultry ’ s F are t ta m otion. Tria l did not a c tua lly be gin until “ a lm ost four m onths la te r.” On this re c o rd, whic h is not m ate ria lly diffe re nt from

the c irc um sta

nc e s in Moore , Fa

ultry in fa c t m a de his m otion “we e ks be fore tria l .” Like M o o re , who re q ue s te d se lfre pre se ntation da

y s a fte r tria l ha d be e n origina lly sc he dule d but two we e ks be fore tria l a c tua lly

be ga n , Fa u ltry m a de his m otion we e k s be fore tria l. Se e Moore , 108 F.3d at 262-63. Thesta

te c ourt’ s de nia l of his re que st wa s “ c ontra ry to” the Supre m e C ourt’ s de c i sion in Fare tta . 4For the a bove re a s ons, I would re ve rse the distric t c o urt’ s de nia l of ha

be a s re lie f.

5