Rick Francis Cradduck v. Rick Coursey

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICK FRANCIS CRADDUCK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RICK COURSEY,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 12-35983
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01372-PK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2014 **
Portland, Oregon
Before: ALARCÓN, TASHIMA, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Rick Francis Cradduck appeals the district court’s denial of his
petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C § 2254. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
MAY 20 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

-- 1 of 3 --

1. The state trial court did not err in accepting Cradduck’s pre-trial
waiver of his right to counsel. The trial court fully informed Cradduck of the
nature of the charges against him, the possible penalties he faced, and the dangers
and disadvantages of self-representation. Despite the trial court’s emphatic
recommendation to retain counsel, Cradduck insisted on proceeding pro se. The
trial court’s conclusion that Cradduck’s waiver was knowing and intelligent was
not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law;
nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C. §
2254(d); see Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975) (holding that waiver
was valid where defendant unequivocally declared his desire to waive his right to
counsel, and the record indicated that defendant was literate, understanding, and
“voluntarily exercising his informed free will”).
2. Cradduck’s claim that the denial of a continuance violated his Sixth
Amendment right to self-representation is procedurally barred because Cradduck
did not fairly present the operative facts of this claim to the state courts. See 28
2

-- 2 of 3 --

U.S.C. § 2254(b); Gulbrandson v. Ryan, 738 F.3d 976, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2013). We
therefore do not reach its merits. 1
The judgment of the district court denying Cradduck’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus is
AFFIRMED.
1 We need not consider whether the trial court’s denial of a continuance
violated Cradduck’s right to due process because Cradduck has not pursued that
claim on appeal.
3

-- 3 of 3 --