The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
08-35676•Michael J. Loomis v. Randy Blades
08-35676Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJun 11, 2010
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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL J. LOOMIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RANDY BLADES,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-35676
D.C. No. 1:06-cv-00157-BLW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Idaho state prisoner Michael J. Loomis appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
JUN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
08-35676 2
Loomis contends that the state trial court’s denial of his request for DNA
testing deprived him of his constitutional right to present a defense. The trial
court’s determination that the expense of testing was not justified because the DNA
test at issue was not sufficiently related to the charged offenses, and a negative test
result would not have supported Loomis’ argument that he fabricated his
confession, is supported by the record. Thus, the state court of appeals’ decision
affirming the trial court’s denial of Loomis’ request for DNA testing was not
contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d);
see also Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 689-91 (1986); Ake v. Oklahoma, 470
U.S. 68, 77 (1985).
We deny Loomis’ motion to expand the certificate of appealability. See 9th
Cir. R. 22-1; see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999)
(per curiam).
We also deny Loomis’ motion for confirmation of documents and request
for augmentation of the record.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.