Case Explained: BODDEN V. DREESEN, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-17 Docket: 2:14-cv-01968-RFB-NJK The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Karen Bodden’s habeas corpus petition regarding her claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present a forensic biologist. The court held that this claim was procedurally defaulted and could not be excused under *Martinez v. Ryan* because the petitioner failed to satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) to introduce new evidence, specifically a declaration from Dr. Elizabeth Johnson, which was necessary to prove ineffective assistance of state post-conviction counsel. Citing *McLaughlin v. Oliver*, the court ruled that federal habeas courts may not consider new evidence on the merits of a procedurally defaulted claim unless § 2254(e)(2) exceptions are met. Additionally, the court declined to consider Bodden’s alternative “actual innocence” argument raised for the first time in her reply brief, noting it was waived and beyond the scope of the certificate of appealability granted by the panel. As a result, the underlying claim fails, and the district court’s denial remains in effect. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.