Herman Sanchez v. Greg Lewis
Herman SANCHEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Greg LEWIS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Mary M. Schroeder (author), Fletcher, Gonzalo P. Curiel
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HERMAN SANCHEZ, No. 12-16962 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02134-KJM-CKD v. MEMORANDUM* GREG LEWIS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted September 12, 2014 San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and CURIEL, District Judge.** Petitioner Herman Sanchez appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Petitioner challenges the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. California Superior Court’s denial of his motion for discovery of a correctional officer’s personnel file for evidence of untruthfulness (“Pitchess motion”) without first conducting an in camera review. This court does not directly review questions of state evidence law, Jammal v. Van de Kamp, 926 F.2d 918, 919 (9th Cir. 1991), and Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the state court’s adjudication of his claim was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
AFFIRMED.