UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEVEN CATLIN, No. 19-99011

Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:07-cv-01466- v. LJO-SAB RONALD BROOMFIELD, Warden, OPINION San Quentin State Prison,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted September 26, 2024 San Francisco, California

Filed December 24, 2024 Before: MILAN D. SMITH, JR., RYAN D. NELSON, and PATRICK J. BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. 2 CATLIN V. BROOMFIELD

SUMMARY *

Habeas Corpus / Death Penalty

The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of California state prisoner Steven Catlin’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his 1990 conviction for murdering his fourth wife and his adoptive mother, as well as his death sentence. The panel concluded that the standard of review set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act applies to Catlin’s claims because they were adjudicated on the merits by the California Supreme Court (CSC). That is true even though the CSC rejected some claims in Catlin’s state habeas petition as procedurally barred because they had already been resolved in Catlin’s first state habeas petition. The panel held: (1) the CSC acted reasonably in rejecting Catlin’s claims of error arising from the state trial judge’s ex parte discussion with a juror; (2) the CSC acted reasonably in concluding that there was no ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt phase of Catlin’s trial; and (3) the CSC acted reasonably in concluding that there was no ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of Catlin’s trial. The panel declined to issue a certificate of appealability as to Catlin’s uncertified claim that the state violated his due process rights by withholding exculpatory evidence and presenting false evidence. * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. CATLIN V. BROOMFIELD 3

COUNSEL Saor E. Stetler (argued), Law Offices of Saor E. Stetler, Mill Valley, California; Richard G. Novak, Law Offices of Richard G. Novak, Berkeley, California; for Petitioner- Appellant. Kenneth N. Sokoler (argued) and Tami K. Krenzin, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General; Sean M. McCoy and Ross K. Naughton, Deputy Attorneys General; James W. Bilderback II, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California; Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, California; for Respondent-Appellee.

OPINION M. SMITH, Circuit Judge:

California state prisoner Steven Catlin appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. In two separate trials, Catlin was convicted of murdering three family members with paraquat, a poisonous agricultural herbicide. The § 2254 petition in this case challenges Catlin’s 1990 conviction for murdering his fourth wife, Joyce Catlin, and his adoptive mother, Martha Catlin, as well as his death sentence. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the petition. Like the district court, we conclude that (1) the California Supreme Court (CSC) acted reasonably in rejecting Catlin’s claims of error arising from the state trial judge’s ex parte discussion with a juror; (2) the CSC acted reasonably in 4 CATLIN V. BROOMFIELD

concluding that there was no ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt phase of Catlin’s trial; and (3) the CSC acted reasonably in conclu