Robert Feiger v. Roderick Hickman , 406 F. App'x 153 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT JEFFRY FEIGER, No. 08-56495
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:05-cv-01754-L-PCL
v.
MEMORANDUM**
RODERICK Q. HICKMAN and
EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Attorney
General,*
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
M. James Lorenz, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2010***
Pasadena, California
Before: TROTT, WARDLAW, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
*
Edmund G. Brown Jr., is substituted for his predecessor, Bill Lockyer,
as Attorney General of California. Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
**
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court did not err in denying Feiger’s petition and his demand for
an evidentiary hearing, because Feiger did not allege facts which, if proved, would
entitle him to relief under AEDPA. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 312 (1963),
overruled in part on other grounds by Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 5
(1992); West v. Ryan, 608 F.3d 477, 485 (9th Cir. 2010). Specifically, Feiger
failed to identify any clearly established Supreme Court precedent holding that
inferences jurors draw from testimony by trial witnesses are within the class of
“extraneous” influences that necessitate an evidentiary hearing or reversal of a
conviction. See Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 117–18 (1987); Remmer v.
United States, 347 U.S. 227, 229 (1954). For the same reason, the state court’s
determination that Feiger was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing was not an
unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Further, “[c]learly
established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court, does not require state
or federal courts to hold a hearing every time a claim of juror bias is raised.”
Tracey v. Palmateer, 341 F.3d 1037, 1045 (9th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.
-2-