green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
41.2 score
“petitioner for 22 habeas corpus relief under 28 u.s.c. 2254 exhausts available state remedies 23 only if he characterized the claims he raised in state proceedings specifically as 24 federal claims.”
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Devlin v. Oliver
petitioner for 22 habeas corpus relief under 28 u.s.c. 2254 exhausts available state remedies 23 only if he characterized the claims he raised in state proceedings specifically as 24 federal claims.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Metcalf v. John Doe
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 4 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that 5 the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal 6 law is. 7 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 8 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 9 Petitioner states he has only sought administrative relief.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC)Casimino v. Gamboa
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson 9 v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 10 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal 11 standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal law is. 12 13 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 14 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 15 Petitioner raises the following three claims in his…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC)Candelaria v. Lemon
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 4 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that 5 the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal 6 law is. 7 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 8 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 9 Petitioner raises ten claims in his petition.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Medina v. On Habeas Corpus
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 3 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that 4 the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal 5 law is. 6 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 7 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 8 In the form petition, Petitioner makes one statement: “I …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Robinson v. Macomder
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 4 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that 5 the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal 6 law is. 7 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 8 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 9 Petitioner presents four claims based on ineffective assist…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Lee v. Arce
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 5 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that 6 the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal 7 law is. 8 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 9 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 10 Petitioner raises several claims of ineffective assistance…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC)Garcia v. Phillips
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); 16 Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 17 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and 18 federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal law is. 19 20 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 21 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 22 Petitioner raised the following three claims in hi…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) KasenzangaKhona v. Cano
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); 21 Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 22 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and 23 federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal law is. 24 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 25 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 26 The recommendation that Petitioner be transferred to …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC)Williams v. People of the State of California
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 4 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact 5 that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of 6 federal law is. 7 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 8 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 9 On appeal, Petitioner raised the following five grounds for…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Washington v. Youngblood
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 4 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact 5 that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of 6 federal law is. 7 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 8 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 9 Petitioner indicates he has not sought any state court reli…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Harris v. Campbell
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 3 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact 4 that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of 5 federal law is. 6 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 7 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 8 Petitioner indicates he has only sought relief in the Calif…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Dehart v. Fresno Superior Court
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 4 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact 5 that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of 6 federal law is. 7 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 8 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 9 Petitioner indicates he has only sought relief in the Fresn…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Jeffery v. Fresno County Superior Court
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 4 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact 5 that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of 6 federal law is. 7 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 8 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 9 Petitioner indicates he has not sought relief for his claim…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Brevik v. Schuyler
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 3 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact 4 that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of 5 federal law is. 6 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 7 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 8 Petitioner sets forth ten claims for relief.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Brevik v. Schuyler
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 3 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact 4 that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of 5 federal law is. 6 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 7 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 8 Petitioner sets forth ten claims for relief.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Snow v. People of California
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 4 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact 5 that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of 6 federal law is. 7 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 8 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 9 Petitioner indicates he has sought relief in the California…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Briggs v. Shirley
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 3 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that 4 the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal 5 law is. 6 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 7 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 8 In this case, Petitioner was sentenced on November 2, 2022.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Holt v. Newsome
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 5 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that 6 the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal 7 law is. 8 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 9 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 10 Petitioner indicates he sought and was granted relief in t…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ramirez v. Finestaine
Hiivala v. Wood, 14 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 15 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact 16 that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the 17 violation of federal law is. 18 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 19 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 20 Failure to present claims for federal relief to th…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC)Rodriguez v. Allison
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 6 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that 7 the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal 8 law is. 9 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 10 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 11 Petitioner indicates he has exhausted all levels of admin…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Conley v. Stanislaus County Public Defenders Office
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson 9 v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 10 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal 11 standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal law is. 12 13 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 14 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 15 In his motion for extension of time, Petitioner sta…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Conley v. Stanislaus County Public Defenders Office
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 6 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that 7 the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal 8 law is. 9 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 10 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 11 Petitioner does not indicate he has sought relief in the …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Ellis v. KVSP
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson 6 v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 7 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal 8 standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal law is. 9 10 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 11 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 12 Petitioner states he filed a habeas petition in the Ke…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Driver v. California Supreme Court
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Duncan, this court has held that the petitioner 24 must make the federal basis of the claim explicit either by citing federal law or the decisions of federal courts, even if the federal basis is “self-evident,” Gatlin v. Madding, 25 189 F.3d 882, 889 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4 , 7 . . . (1982)), or the underlying claim would be decided under state law on the same considerations that 26 would control resolution of the claim on federal grounds, see, e.g., Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Ze…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Jacome v. \IRS\" of California"
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson 26 v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 27 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal 1 law is. 2 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000), as amended by Lyons v. Crawford, 3 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 4 It appears that Petitioner has not presented any of the claims to the California Supreme 5 Court as required by the exhaustion doctrine.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Griffin v. Price
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Duncan, this court has held that the petitioner 28 must make the federal basis of the claim explicit either by citing federal law or the 1 decisions of federal courts, even if the federal basis is “self-evident," Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 889 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4 , 7 . . . (1982)), 2 or the underlying claim would be decided under state law on the same considerations that would control resolution of the claim on federal grounds, see, e.g., Hiivala v. Wood, 195 3 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zeno…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Collins v. Clark
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Duncan, this court has held that the petitioner 24 must make the federal basis of the claim explicit either by citing federal law or the decisions of federal courts, even if the federal basis is “self-evident," Gatlin v. Madding, 25 189 F.3d 882, 889 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4 , 7 . . . (1982)), or the underlying claim would be decided under state law on the same considerations that 26 would control resolution of the claim on federal grounds, see, e.g., Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zeno…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Griffin v. Price
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Duncan, this court has held that the petitioner 26 must make the federal basis of the claim explicit either by citing federal law or the decisions of federal courts, even if the federal basis is “self-evident,” Gatlin v. Madding, 27 189 F.3d 882, 889 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4 , 7 . . . (1982)), or the underlying claim would be decided under state law on the same considerations that 28 would control resolution of the claim on federal grounds, see, e.g., Hiivala v. Wood, 195 1 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Walker v. Cates
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Duncan, this court has held that the petitioner 24 must make the federal basis of the claim explicit either by citing federal law or the decisions of federal courts, even if the federal basis is “self-evident," Gatlin v. Madding, 25 189 F.3d 882, 889 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4 , 7 . . . (1982)), or the underlying claim would be decided under state law on the same considerations that 26 would control resolution of the claim on federal grounds, see, e.g., Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zeno…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Michael N. Chisom v. Madera County
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson 13 v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 14 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal 15 standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal law is. 16 17 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 18 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 19 Petitioner indicates he is not knowledgeable in th…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Rivas v. Koenig
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 19 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that the 20 relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal law is. 21 22 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons v. 23 Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 24 Petitioner raises two grounds in his federal petition…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Michael N. Chisom v. Madera County
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 5 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that 6 the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal 7 law is. 8 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 9 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 10 Petitioner indicates he has petitioned for writ of habeas …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Kindred v. Superior Court of California County of Orange
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 14 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that the 15 relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal law is. 16 17 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons v. 18 Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 19 Petitioner did not properly present his federal claim…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Slaven v. Covello
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 16 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that the 17 relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal law is. 18 19 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons v. 20 Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 21 Petitioner did not properly present his sole federal …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Howell v. Black
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098 , 5 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 6 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal 7 standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal law is. 8 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons v. 9 Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 10 Petitioner raised the following four claims in his petiti…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Silva v. Patterson
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson 9 v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 10 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal 11 standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal law is. 12 13 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 14 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 15 Petitioner raises thirteen claims in his petition.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Austin v. Stanislaus County Superior Court
Since the Supreme Court's decision in Duncan, this court has held that the petitioner must 26 make the federal basis of the claim explicit either by citing federal law or the decisions of federal courts, even if the federal basis is “self-evident," Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 27 882, 889 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4 , 7 . . . (1982)), or the underlying claim would be decided under state law on the same considerations that would 28 control resolution of the claim on federal grounds, see, e.g., Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zeno…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Slaven v. Covello
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098 , 1106- 07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 14 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that the 15 relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal law is. 16 17 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons v. 18 Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 19 Petitioner raised three grounds for relief in his f…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Jones v. Johnson
Since the Supreme Court's decision in Duncan, this court has held that the petitioner must 24 make the federal basis of the claim explicit either by citing federal law or the decisions of federal courts, even if the federal basis is “self-evident," Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 25 882, 889 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4 , 7 . . . (1982)), or the underlying claim would be decided under state law on the same considerations that would 26 control resolution of the claim on federal grounds, see, e.g., Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon,…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Austin v. Stanislaus County Superior Court
Since the Supreme Court's decision in Duncan, this court has held that the petitioner must 25 make the federal basis of the claim explicit either by citing federal law or the decisions of federal courts, even if the federal basis is “self-evident," Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 26 882, 889 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4 , 7 . . . (1982)), or the underlying claim would be decided under state law on the same considerations that would 27 control resolution of the claim on federal grounds, see, e.g., Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon,…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC)Valdivia v. CDCR
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 5 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that 6 the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal 7 law is. 8 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 9 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 10 Petitioner states he was sentenced on August 7, 2018, to a…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Medina v. CDCR
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 5 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that 6 the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal 7 law is. 8 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 9 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 10 Petitioner states he was sentenced on July 16, 2020, to a …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Howard v. Cates
Since the Supreme Court's decision in Duncan, this court has held that the petitioner must 26 make the federal basis of the claim explicit either by citing federal law or the decisions of federal courts, even if the federal basis is “self-evident," Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 27 882, 889 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4 , 7 . . . (1982)), or the underlying claim would be decided under state law on the same considerations that would 28 control resolution of the claim on federal grounds, see, e.g., Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zeno…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Taylor v. Lynch
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098 , 1106- 07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 21 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that the 22 relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal law is. 23 24 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons v. 25 Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 26 Petitioner raised the following claims in his petit…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Mendoza v. CDCR
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 5 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that 6 the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal 7 law is. 8 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons 9 v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 10 Petitioner states he was sentenced to a four-year prison t…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Howard v. Cates
Since the Supreme Court's decision in Duncan, this court has held that the petitioner must 24 make the federal basis of the claim explicit either by citing federal law or the decisions of federal courts, even if the federal basis is “self-evident," Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 25 882, 889 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4 , 7 . . . (1982)), or the underlying claim would be decided under state law on the same considerations that would 26 control resolution of the claim on federal grounds, see, e.g., Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon,…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Howell v. Black
Since the Supreme Court's decision in Duncan, this court has held that the petitioner must 26 make the federal basis of the claim explicit either by citing federal law or the decisions of federal courts, even if the federal basis is “self-evident," Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 27 882, 889 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4 , 7 . . . (1982)), or the underlying claim would be decided under state law on the same considerations that would 28 control resolution of the claim on federal grounds, see, e.g., Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zeno…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Galafate v. Anglea
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098 , 1106- 2 07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 3 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that the relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal 4 standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal law is. 5 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons v. 6 Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 7 Petitioner raised the following two claims in his petitio…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Delacruz v. Sherman
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F3d 1098 , 1106- 07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); . . . . 11 In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert the state court to the fact that the 12 relevant claim is a federal one without regard to how similar the state and federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how obvious the violation of federal law is. 13 14 Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-669 (9th Cir. 2000) (italics added), as amended by Lyons v. 15 Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-5 (9th Cir. 2001). 16 Petitioner did not properly present his federal cla…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Phillip Jackson LYONS
v.
Jackie CRAWFORD
v.
Jackie CRAWFORD
No. 99-17351.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Nov 13, 2000.
Danice Arbor Johnson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Las Vegas, Nevada, for the petitioner-appellant., Dorothy Nash Holmes, Deputy Attorney General, Carson City, Nevada, for the respondent-appellee.
Gould, Leavy, Scannlain.
Cited by 185 opinions | Published
Citer courts: D. Nevada (1)
ORDER
The opinion filed November 13, 2000 [232 F.3d 666], is hereby ordered amended as follows:
Slip Op. at 14430: Delete “AFFIRMED” and add the following new paragraphs to the end of the opinion:
“Nevertheless, because Lyons’s habe-as petition included a number of exhausted claims which the district court dismissed without prejudice at Lyons’s request, we remand this action to the district court to provide Lyons with the opportunity to proceed on such exhausted claims only.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED.”
Except as herein modified, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the Petition for Rehearing. Judge Gould and Judge O’Scannlain have voted to reject the Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc and Judge Leavy so recommends.
The full court was advised of the Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc. A judge of this court requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of[*905] the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration.
The Petition and the Suggestion are thus DENIED.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.