Whether the federal habeas courts should evaluate the summary denial of a California habeas petition based on whether the petitioner failed to allege a prima facie case for relief, not whether he failed to prove his claims

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether this Court should clarify that under Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 98 (2011), when the federal habeas courts evaluate the summary denial of a California habeas petition, the issue is whether the court reasonably found the petitioner failed to allege a prima facie case for relief and not whether he failed to prove his claims, because this is what the “state knew and did” under Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 182 (2011)? 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit misapplied the materiality test of Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 436-438 (1995) by analyzing the multiple Brady violations item-by-item rather than collectively? 2. Whether a certificate of appealability (“COA”) should have been issued to decide if the Eighth Amendment tolerates 36 years on death row without any evidentiary hearing on numerous claims of prosecutorial misconduct affecting a conviction based on questionable eyewitness identification and unreliable criminal informants? 1