Herman Sanchez v. Greg Lewis

Ninth Circuit

Herman Sanchez v. Greg Lewis

584 F. App'x 906

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 3, 2014

Docket12-16962

StatusUnpublished

This text of 584 F. App'x 906 (Herman Sanchez v. Greg Lewis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Herman Sanchez v. Greg Lewis, 584 F. App'x 906 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

*907 MEMORANDUM **

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 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.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*907 MEMORANDUM **

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 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.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

584 F. App'x 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herman-sanchez-v-greg-lewis-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack