Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/221

 546US1

10

Unit: $$U3

[08-26-08 13:34:57] PAGES PGT: OPIN

KANE v. GARCIA ESPITIA Per Curiam

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that “the lack of any pretrial access to lawbooks violated Espitia’s constitutional right to represent himself as established by the Supreme Court in Faretta [v. California, 422 U. S. 806 (1975)].” Garcia Espitia v. Ortiz, 113 Fed. Appx. 802, 804 (2004). The warden’s petition for certiorari and respond­ ent’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded. A necessary condition for federal habeas relief here is that the state court’s decision be “contrary to, or involv[e] an un­ reasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” § 2254(d)(1). Neither the opinion below, nor any of the ap­ pellate cases it relies on, identiﬁes a source in our case law for the law library access right other than Faretta. See id., at 804 (relying on Bribiesca v. Galaza, 215 F. 3d 1015, 1020 (CA9 2000) (quoting Milton v. Morris, 767 F. 2d 1443, 1446 (CA9 1985))); ibid. (“Faretta controls this case”). The federal appellate courts have split on whether Faretta, which establishes a Sixth Amendment right to self­ representation, implies a right of the pro se defendant to have access to a law library. Compare Milton, supra, with United States v. Smith, 907 F. 2d 42, 45 (CA6 1990) (“[B]y knowingly and intelligently waiving his right to counsel, the appellant also relinquished his access to a law library”); United States ex rel. George v. Lane, 718 F. 2d 226, 231 (CA7 1983) (similar). That question cannot be resolved here, how­ ever, as it is clear that Faretta does not, as § 2254(d)(1) requires, “clearly establis[h]” the law library access right. In fact, Faretta says nothing about any speciﬁc legal aid that the State owes a pro se criminal defendant. The Bribiesca court and the court below therefore erred in holding, based on Faretta, that a violation of a law library access right is a basis for federal habeas relief.