ORDER
Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 17, 2010, petitioner was convicted by a jury in Siskiyou County of false imprisonment, battery, torture, assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and dissuading a witness. He is serving consecutive sentences of 10 years and 8 months imprisonment and 7 years-to-life imprisonment. Respondent filed an answer to the petition, and petitioner filed a traverse. ECF Nos. 23, 46. The parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). ECF Nos 6 and 16. Upon careful consideration of the record and the applicable law, the petition is denied.
In its affirmation of the judgment on direct appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District summarized the facts presented at trial as follows:
Defendant's convictions stem from his physical abuse of the victim in late May 2009 during an overnight stay at a transient campsite in the woods south of Little Castle Creek and west of Interstate 5 near the Crag View Drive exit. This is in Siskiyou County's southernmost reaches (with Dunsmuir just to the north). On the east side of the interstate (through a culvert for the creek) is a popular local swimming hole.
The victim, in her mid-thirties, had known defendant since her childhood in the Weed region of the county. They began "seeing each other off and on" in summer 2008. She had been addicted to methamphetamine and alcohol since her teens. At the time of the trial, she was experiencing the after-effects of her injuries (including chronic pain, seizures, and poor short-term memory), which required her to take analgesics and psychiatric medications. She also had a preexisting bipolar condition that required medication as well.
In February 2009, the victim and the defendant left town. They met up with the victim's teenage son, who had stolen a car from his foster parents, and the three began a cross-country trip to Missouri (where defendant's father had lived). The victim testified she left Siskiyou County to keep threats of violence away from her grandmother (with whom she lived) and younger child. She told her probation officer at the time that she was afraid the people with whom she had drug dealings were going to kill her.1 Defendant left to avoid charges for inflicting great bodily harm on Cliff Taylor.2 On the way, they stopped in Las Vegas for a couple of days, where the family of defendant's stepfather lived. They stayed in Missouri for a few weeks, after which the victim and her son returned to California by bus.
When defendant returned to California, the victim joined him reluctantly in Sacramento. She wanted to keep him away from her grandmother, because his behavior had become volatile while they were in Missouri. They camped for a while in the foothills while defendant panned for gold. The victim testified that defendant was being verbally and physically abusive.
Defendant had not been using drugs up to this point. After they had been in the foothills for a couple of months, defendant's brother and his girlfriend met up with them.3 The quartet stayed a night at a"pink motel," where defendant inflicted physical abuse on the victim.4 At some point the following day, the victim asked the girlfriend to get them back to Siskiyou County because defendant would kill her if they left them behind. Defendant started hitting her in the car in front of the others. The victim said she was getting badly bruised, and the quartet spent the following night at a different motel; the victim testified the brother was concerned that defendant's behavior "was going to get them pulled over, and [defendant's] brother told him, 'You can't do this in public. You have to do this in private.'" Again, defendant subjected the victim to physical abuse throughout the night. Although she was screaming to draw attention, no one responded.
The following day, defendant was smoking drugs as they drove in the brother's girlfriend's car. Defendant began hitting the victim in front of the others, and continued his verbal abuse. At one point, the girlfriend stopped the car because she could not tolerate defendant's behavior any longer. Although the victim pleaded with the other two to put a stop to the abuse, neither said anything to defendant. They drove north on Interstate 5, stopping only once in Williams at a gas station (where defendant threatened to break the victim's jaw if she sought help) before they reached the exit for the Little Castle Creek encampment in the late afternoon. The victim again pleaded with the others not to leave her there with defendant. When a truck—parked nearby—departed, defendant punched her in the jaw.
Defendant forced the victim toward the encampment, striking her in the head and back as they walked through the culvert. However, defendant calmed down for a few hours. After it grew dark, someone parked a car at the swimming hole and honked. The victim assumed it was defendant's brother, because defendant returned with drugs. After taking them, defendant became "mean and explosive." He beat her continuously during the night and following day of their stay. She began to have seizures.5
On the following afternoon, defendant encountered a group of teenagers near the culvert, and asked them to call the police to summon medical assistance for his companion. When they followed him to the campsite, he claimed Taylor (his great bodily injury victim) had beaten her. He has also told the victim to give the same explanation to the paramedics when they arrived (the victim knew Taylor from past drug purchases).6 She accordingly told this to a paramedic and a detective, alluding to being a casualty of a "drug war."
Defendant had left before assistance arrived, telling a witness that he needed to pursue the attacker. He later told a detective that an unknown assailant had attacked the victim in his absence, and the impetus for his flight was his outstanding warrant for inflicting great bodily injury.
When examined at the hospital, the victim had bruising over her entire body, a fractured nose, and a subdural hematoma. The victim also tested positive for methamphetamine. While the victim told a detective that defendant had rubbed her face with creosote, the examination did not find any signs of this. The victim also testified defendant had cut her genitalia with a sharp object, but an exam a week after her rescue did not show any signs of this.
Lodged Document ("Lod. Doc.") 5 at 2-7;7 see also People v. Marsala, No. C 065614, 2012 WL 592920 at *1-3 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. Feb. 23, 2012).
II. Procedural Background Following a jury trial in the Siskiyou County Superior Court, petitioner was convicted of false imprisonment (as a lesser included offense of kidnapping for purposes of rape), misdemeanor battery (as a lesser included offense of rape), torture, assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, and dissuading a witness. Lod. Doc. 5 at 1. The jury found the charged enhancements for inflicting great bodily injury and for having served two prior prison terms to be true. Id. The jury also returned a verdict of not guilty on charges of attempted murder, the making of criminal threats, and arson. Id.
The trial court sentenced petitioner to state prison with indeterminate term of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after seven years, and a consecutive determinate term of ten years and eight months.
Petitioner appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District. Lod. Doc. 1. With the exception of making a modification to pretrial custody credits, the appellate court denied petitioner's claims on the merits and affirmed his sentence. Lod. Doc. 5.
///// Petitioner filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court. Lod. Doc. 6. On May 16, 2012, the California Supreme Court denied review. Lod. Doc. 7.
Petitioner filed a state habeas petition in the Siskiyou County Superior Court on August 2, 2013, which was denied in a written decision on September 6, 2013. Lod. Docs. 8, 9. Petitioner filed a second state habeas petition in the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District on November 1, 2013, which was summarily denied on November 7, 2013. Lod. Docs. 9, 10. Petitioner filed a third state habeas petition in the California Supreme Court on February 18, 2014, which was summarily denied on May 14, 2014. Lod. Doc. 10.
Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition on August 5, 2013. ECF No. 1. He subsequently filed the operative first amended petition on April 7, 2014. ECF No. 12. Respondent filed an answer on March 11, 2015. ECF No. 23. Petitioner filed a traverse on July 2, 2015. ECF No. 46.
III. Standard For Habeas Corpus Relief An application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody under a judgment of a state court can be granted only for violations of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Also, federal habeas corpus relief is not available for any claim decided on the merits in state court proceedings unless the state court's adjudication of the claim:
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (referenced herein in as "§ 2254(d)"). It is the habeas petitioner's burden to show he is not precluded from obtaining relief by § 2254(d). See Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 25 (2002).
The "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" clauses of §...
