Did the Ninth Circuit's unreasoned denial so clearly misapply Buck's modest standard as to call for summary reversal?

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner David Godine sought leave in district court to amend his untimely pro se federal habeas petition with new claims. To excuse the untimeliness, he asserted his “actual innocence.” McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2018). Among the evidence of his innocence were (1) a report by a forensic psychologist, who explained why the victim’s concussion made her apt to misidentify Godine as one of her attackers, and (2) affidavits from nine eyewitnesses—seven of whom swore they saw Godine leave the crime scene well before the attack occurred, and several of whom witnessed other persons either admit to or commit the crimes. The district court rejected Godine’s innocence claim without a hearing, and denied leave to amend—ignoring the report, and discounting all of the statements. Without analysis, the Ninth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability, effectively holding that Godine’s innocence was “not even debatable.” Buck v. Davis, 1387 S. Ct. 759, 774 (2017). Did the Ninth Circuit’s unreasoned denial so clearly misapply Buck’s modest standard as to call for summary reversal? ii CONTENTS PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI... ee eet