Case Name: Joseph S. ROOT, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Alice PAYNE, Respondent-Appellant. Joseph S. Root, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alice Payne, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-14
Citations: 110 F. App'x 845
Docket Number: Nos. 03-35898, 03-35949; D.C. Nos. CV-03-05079-RJB, CV-03-05079-RJB-JKA
Parties: Joseph S. ROOT, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Alice PAYNE, Respondent-Appellant. Joseph S. Root, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alice Payne, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 110
Pages: 845–845

Head Matter:
Joseph S. ROOT, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Alice PAYNE, Respondent-Appellant. Joseph S. Root, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alice Payne, Respondent-Appellee.
Nos. 03-35898, 03-35949.
D.C. Nos. CV-03-05079-RJB, CV-03-05079-RJB-JKA.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 5, 2004.
Decided Oct. 14, 2004.
Sheryl Gordon McCloud, Law Offices of Sheryl Gordon McCloud, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner-Appellee.
John Joseph Samson, Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Respondent-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding.
Before KOZINSKI, FERNANDEZ and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
1. The Washington appellate courts' denials of Root's ineffective assistance of counsel claims for failure to show prejudice were neither contrary to nor unreasonable applications of clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U.S. 1, 124 S.Ct. 1, 4, 157 L.Ed.2d 1 (2003) (per curiam). The district court erred in finding that the decisions were contrary to and unreasonable applications of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
2. The district court was correct to reject Root's remaining challenges based on his right to present a complete defense, statutory overbreadth and equal protection.
The petition for habeas corpus is denied in full.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.