James Dixie v. Robert Horel

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES LEWIS DIXIE, No. 08-16447
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-CV-00129-VRW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ROBERT A. HOREL, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Vaughn R. Walker, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 23, 2010 **
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner James Lewis Dixie appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
*
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).
Dixie contends that the district court erred by dismissing his petition as
procedurally defaulted. This contention fails because the record supports the
district court’s conclusion that Dixie’s claims are barred by a state rule, which was
actually relied upon by the state court, and that is independent of federal law and
adequate to support the judgment. See Carter v. Giurbino, 385 F.3d 1194,
1196-1197 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803 (1991)
(“Where there has been one reasoned state judgment rejecting a federal claim, later
unexplained orders upholding that judgment or rejecting the same claim rest upon
the same ground.”). Additionally, Dixie has not established “cause for the default
and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or that
failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.”
See Carter, 385 F.3d at 1196-1197.
AFFIRMED.
2 08-16447