Stroud v. Adams
Jabbar Latino STROUD, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Derral G. ADAMS, Warden; Kamala Harris, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Marilyn L. Huff (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Alfred T. Goodwin (author), Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Susan Graber
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 01 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JABBAR LATINO STROUD, No. 07-56633 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-06-00471-H(AJB)
v. MEMORANDUM * DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden; KAMALA HARRIS,** Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 17, 2011 Pasadena, California Before: GOODWIN, KLEINFELD, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Jabbar Latino Stroud appeals denial by the district court of a writ of habeas corpus. We granted a Certificate of Appealability that asks whether appellant’s Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the trial court’s admission of a letter sent * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** Kamala Harris has replaced Bill Lockyer as Attorney General. by appellant during his incarceration. Given deference owed the district court decision under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, we hold that Stroud’s rights were not violated. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
The clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, that governs here includes Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989); Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974); and Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). The California Court of Appeal did not unreasonably apply this law. See People v. Stroud, No. D040833, 2003 WL 22853769 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec.
3, 2003) (unpublished).
The California regulation addressing confidential, outgoing inmate correspondence is, on its face, permissible. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 3142. As applied, the state court was not unreasonable in finding that Stroud, who admitted to being given a copy of the Title 15 regulations, failed to follow the required procedure and in holding that the prison’s actions did not violate Stroud’s constitutional rights. For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial of Stroud’s writ of habeas corpus.
AFFIRMED.