King v. Lamarque

167 Citing cases

  1. Ross v. Felker

    669 F. Supp. 2d 1135 (C.D. Cal. 2009)   Cited 2 times

    Federal courts "will not review a question of federal law decided by a state court if the decision of that court rests on a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment." Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2553, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991); Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362, 375, 122 S.Ct. 877, 885, 151 L.Ed.2d 820 (2002); King v. LaMarque, 464 F.3d 963, 965 (9th Cir. 2006). "[T]he procedural default doctrine is a specific application of the general adequate and independent state grounds doctrine."

  2. King v. Giurbino

    538 F. Supp. 2d 1269 (C.D. Cal. 2008)   Cited 4 times
    Denying habeas petition where trial court allowed prosecution to file amended information to charge petitioner with prior strike offenses

    Federal courts "will not review a question of federal law decided by a state court if the decision of that court rests on a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment." Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2553, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991); Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362, 375, 122 S.Ct. 877, 885, 151 L.Ed.2d 820 (2002); King v. Lamarque, 464 F.3d 963, 965 (9th Cir. 2006). "[T]he procedural default doctrine is a specific application of the general adequate and independent state grounds doctrine."

  3. Burton v. Madden

    Case No. CV 15-7409 DOC (SS) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2019)

    Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 75 (1985); Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41 (1983). A state procedural rule constitutes an adequate bar to federal court review if it was "firmly established and regularly followed" at the time the state court applied it. Ford v. Georgia, 498 U.S. 411, 423-24 (1991); King v. Lamarque, 464 F.3d 963, 965 (9th Cir. 2006). Procedural default is an affirmative defense, Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 165-66 (1996); Insyxiengmay v. Morgan, 403 F.3d 657, 665 (9th Cir. 2005), "and the state has the burden of showing that the default constitutes an adequate and independent ground."

  4. Fontaine v. Moss

    Case No. CV 15-0728 SS (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2017)

    A state procedural rule constitutes an adequate bar to federal court review if it was "firmly established and regularly followed" at the time the state court applied it. Ford v. Georgia, 498 U.S. 411, 423-24 (1991); King v. Lamarque, 464 F.3d 963, 965 (9th Cir. 2006). Procedural default is an affirmative defense, Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 165-66 (1996); Insyxiengmay v. Morgan, 403 F.3d 657, 665 (9th Cir. 2005), "and the state has the burden of showing that the default constitutes an adequate and independent ground."

  5. Stinnett v. McDonald

    1:09-cv-00775 MJS HC (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2012)

    Federal courts "will not review a question of federal law decided by a state court if the decision of that court rests on a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment." Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729 (1991); King v. LaMarque, 464 F.3d 963, 965 (9th Cir.2006). "[T]he procedural default doctrine is a specific application of the general adequate and independent state grounds doctrine."

  6. Castro v. McDonald

    No. 2:10-cv-1607 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2010)

    Federal courts "will not review a question of federal law decided by a state court if the decision of that court rests on a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment." Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729 (1991); King v. LaMarque, 464 F.3d 963, 965 (9th Cir. 2006). "[T]he procedural default doctrine is a specific application of the general adequate and independent state grounds doctrine."

  7. Townsend v. Knowles

    562 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 117 times
    Holding that the State had not met its burden of establishing that California's untimeliness rule is adequate

    A procedural rule can be neither well-established nor consistently applied if it is not "clear and certain." King v. Lamarque, 464 F.3d 963, 965 (9th Cir. 2006). State procedural rules allowing the exercise of judicial discretion are not necessarily uncertain, but the exercise of any such discretion must be according to standards that are not vague or ambiguous.

  8. Ratliff v. Hedgepeth

    712 F. Supp. 2d 1038 (C.D. Cal. 2010)   Cited 8 times

              Federal courts " will not review a question of federal law decided by a state court if the decision of that court rests on a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment." Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2553, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991); Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362, 375, 122 S.Ct. 877, 885, 151 L.Ed.2d 820 (2002); King v. LaMarque, 464 F.3d 963, 965 (9th Cir.2006). " The procedural default doctrine, which is a specific application of the general adequate and independent state grounds doctrine[,]" Wells v. Maass, 28 F.3d 1005, 1008 (9th Cir.1994); Fields v. Calderon, 125 F.3d 757, 761-62 (9th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1132, 118 S.Ct. 1826, 140 L.Ed.2d 962 (1998), " bar[s] federal habeas [review] when a state court declined to address a prisoner's federal claims because the prisoner had failed to meet a state procedural requirement."

  9. Ratliff v. Hedepeth

    Case No. EDCV 07-0627-RSWL(RC) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2009)

    Federal courts "will not review a question of federal law decided by a state court if the decision of that court rests on a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment." Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729, 111 S. Ct. 2546, 2553, 115 L. Ed. 2d 640 (1991); Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362, 375, 122 S. Ct. 877, 885, 151 L. Ed. 2d 820 (2002);King v. Lamarque, 464 F.3d 963, 965 (9th Cir. 2006). "The procedural default doctrine, which "is a specific application of the general adequate and independent state grounds doctrine[,]"Wells v. Maass, 28 F.3d 1005, 1008 (9th Cir. 1994); Fields v. Calderon, 125 F.3d 757, 761-62 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1132 (1998), "bar[s] federal habeas [review] when a state court declined to address a prisoner's federal claims because the prisoner had failed to meet a state procedural requirement.

  10. Wentzell v. Neven

    Case No. 2:10-cv-01024-RLH-GWF (D. Nev. Mar. 23, 2015)   Cited 2 times

    A state procedural bar is "adequate" if it is "clear, consistently applied, and well-established at the time of the petitioner's purported default." Calderon v. United States District Court (Bean), 96 F.3d 1126, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Wells v. Maass, 28 F.3d 1005, 1010 (9th Cir. 1994)); see also King v. Lamarque, 464 F.3d 963, 966-67 (9th Cir. 2006). A state procedural bar is "independent" if the state court "explicitly invokes the procedural rule as a separate basis for its decision."