Nasby v. McDaniel, No. 14-17313 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of murder, appealed the district court's denial of his motion for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d). In Jones v. Wood, the court held that a habeas court must either obtain and review the relevant portions of the record on which the state court based its judgment, or conduct an evidentiary hearing of its own. In this case, the court concluded that the district court failed to obtain and review the relevant portions of the state court record and did not hold an evidentiary hearing on petitioner's claims. Consequently, the district court failed to perform the "independent review" of the basis for the state court's decision that Jones required. The court concluded that the State was clearly wrong in asserting that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) prevents a federal habeas court from reviewing the record and obliges it, instead, to accept the state court's description of facts on faith. Rather, it was clear that in order to provide adequate habeas review as contemplated by AEDPA, the district court was required to review the state court record. Accordingly, the court vacated the dismissal of the petition and remanded with instructions.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel vacated the district court’s dismissal of Nevada state prisoner Brendan Nasby’s habeas corpus petition, vacated the district court’s order denying Nasby’s motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), and remanded for review of the pertinent state record. The panel held that the principle articulated in the line of cases beginning with Jones v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 1997), requires a remand because the district court, which failed to obtain and review the relevant portions of the state court record and did not hold an evidentiary hearing on Nasby’s claims, did not perform the “independent review” of the basis of the state court’s decision that Jones requires. The panel wrote that the State’s assertion that AEDPA prevents a federal habeas court from reviewing the record and obliges it to accept the state court’s description of facts on faith, is clearly wrong. The panel wrote that AEDPA demands the opposite. NASBY V. MCDANIEL 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.