Court Opinion

ID: 9374267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 18:01:22.102882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:50.612891
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS VILLANEDA,                                 No.    21-56160

                Petitioner-Appellant,           D.C. No. 2:18-cv-10485-SHK

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
KELLY SANTORO, Acting Warden,

                Respondent-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
             H. H. (Shashi) Kewalramani, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted February 14, 2023**
                               Pasadena, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

      Luis Villaneda appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291

and 2253, and we affirm.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      We review de novo a district court’s denial of a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus. Kipp v. Davis, 971 F.3d 939, 948 (9th Cir. 2020); see Scott v. Schriro, 567

F.3d 573, 580 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (explaining that de novo review applies

to denial of relief based on a procedural bar). Our review is constrained by the

deferential standards established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty

Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) as to “any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in

State court proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

      1.     To the extent Villaneda challenges the state court’s application of

California Civil Procedure Code § 237, his claim is not cognizable on federal

habeas review. “[A] federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state

prisoner only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or

laws or treaties of the United States.” Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219

(2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[F]ederal habeas corpus

relief does not lie for errors of state law.” Id. (citations omitted).

      2.     The district court properly determined that the state respondents did

not waive a procedural bar defense to Villaneda’s claim that his due process rights

were violated when he appeared in restraints in presence of the jury. Although the

state’s original response to the habeas petition did not assert a procedural bar, the

petition did not clearly present a due process shackling claim. After the district

court notified the parties that it broadly construed the petition as including this

                                            2
claim and invited supplemental briefing, the state government asserted the

procedural bar. See Windham v. Merkle, 163 F.3d 1092, 1100 (9th Cir. 1998)

(explaining that in the “interests of justice, comity, federalism, and judicial

efficiency,” the district court can consider a procedural bar when warranted by the

circumstances).

      3.      “The procedural bar doctrine prohibits a federal court from granting

relief on the merits of a state prisoner’s federal claim when the state court denied

the claim based on an independent and adequate state procedural rule.” Ayala v.

Chappell, 829 F.3d 1081, 1095 (9th Cir. 2016); see Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1,

10 (2012) (discussing grounds to overcome a procedural bar). The California

Court of Appeal denied review of Villaneda’s due process shackling claim as

procedurally barred under state law, noting that Villaneda did not timely object to

the handcuffing. California courts recognize and consistently apply a

contemporaneous objection rule, see Fairbanks v. Ayers, 650 F.3d 1243, 1256–57

(9th Cir. 2011), and have applied a similar rule in the context of shackling, see

People v. Ward, 114 P.3d 717, 731 (Cal. 2005). Villaneda has not presented, or

established, a basis to overcome the procedural bar.1

AFFIRMED.

      1
          We grant Villaneda’s unopposed motion to take judicial notice. Dkt. 17.

                                           3