Kruse v. Del Papa
This text of 101 F. App'x 763 (Kruse v. Del Papa) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Recognizing we have the authority to do so, Marx v. Loral Corp., 87 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir.1996), we decline to exercise our discretion to allow Petitioner Kenneth Kruse (“Kruse”) to raise an issue he did not raise in any of his appellate or post-conviction review efforts in state or federal court: whether the Nevada Supreme Court properly identified the independent and adequate state grounds upon which it denied relief. See Valerio v. Crawford, 306 F.3d 742 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994, 123 S.Ct. 1788, 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003); Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision to deny habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
AFFIRMED.
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
101 F. App'x 763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kruse-v-del-papa-ca9-2004.