to the California Court of Appeals which summarily denied relief. The California Supreme Court denied the petition for review. 2. Pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), a federal court may not grant habeas relief for a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the prior adjudication resulted in a decision that was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.”. Brumfield v. Cain, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2269, 2275, — L.Ed.2d - (2015) (quotation omitted). The summary denial of Harris’s claims is a denial on the merits for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 99-100, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011) (<HOLDING>). 3. To establish a Brady violation, Harris
holding that de novo standard of review applies on federal claims never addressed by state courts holding that federal courts should apply state substantive law holding federal courts should apply the aedpas deferential standard of review even when the petitioners claims have been summarily denied by the state courts holding that when all federal claims have been dismissed the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims holding that state courts must apply the federal pleading standard in fela cases