Jimmy Nathan Moody v. ERIC ARNOLD, Acting Warden; CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, Ironwood State Prison

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIMMY NATHAN MOODY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
ERIC ARNOLD, Acting Warden;
CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF
CORRECTIONS, Ironwood State Prison,
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 15-56768
D.C. No.
2:08-cv-04530-ODW-AJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 6, 2017
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,**
District Judge.
Petitioner-Appellant Jimmy Nathan Moody (Moody) appeals the district
court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Following a jury trial,
FILED
FEB 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Moody was convicted of first-degree murder, attempted murder, and shooting at an
inhabited dwelling. Moody asserts a claim of actual innocence. Moody’s claim is
governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, and
habeas relief may be granted only upon a finding that the last reasoned state court
decision rejecting his claim “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme
Court of the United States.” Godoy v. Spearman, 861 F.3d 956, 962 (9th Cir.
2017) (citation omitted).
The last reasoned decision addressing Moody’s actual innocence claim was
the California Superior Court decision denying habeas relief on this claim. In
denying Moody’s habeas petition, the Superior Court of California held that
Moody had failed to make a sufficient showing to warrant relief. Specifically, the
Superior Court found that the declarations provided by Moody did not “point
unerringly to the innocence of Petitioner.” In re Richards, 55 Cal. 4th 948, 959
(2012).
Assuming, without deciding, that a freestanding claim of actual innocence is
cognizable in a federal habeas petition, see Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 417
(1993), the Superior Court’s determination was not “contrary to” or “an
unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law. See id. (observing
2

-- 2 of 3 --

that a successful actual innocence claim would have to meet an “extraordinarily
high” “threshold showing”).
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --